Seniors Who Make Lt Col

[Eclipse]

If he can't do the job as a wing commander what makes you think he is going to be a stellar LtCol afterwards?

Well...there's a lot of subjective there.

I know a lot of people who are good at their jobs at a high level who would make terrible wing CC's, but might get
roped into a Wing King job, especially when you consider how narrow the field can be these days.

A lot of very effective operations people who have held the flight ops side of the house together for years have never
had a command slot, and are horrible at the politics needed to be a Wing CC.

Maybe they don't get to keep the eagles, but terminating them for taking a job few want and is very hard to
accomplish even for the good ones?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

So if a member is in probationary status for multiple years and is then demoted, is THAT then not an adverse action — regardless of the member's actions?

Under the regulation directing the MARP, would that be considered "retribution" by its tortured definition?

[Eclipse]

So if a member is in probationary status for multiple years and is then demoted, is THAT then not an adverse action — regardless of the member's actions?

No, at least not as defined by the regulations.

Under the regulation directing the MARP, would that be considered "retribution" by its tortured definition?

No.  Not being qualified is not the same as retribution.  For retribution you'd have to show an action and a reaction.

"You move away and stopped playing CAP..." is a legitimate reason not to make the promotion permanent. People
want to believe the "why" of them not being around "divorce, job change, lack of free time, moving" is somehow relevent
to this kind of discussion.  It's not, because the clock still ticks and the work still has to be done...by someone else now,
maybe as a second or third job.

Again, how it's construed by the membership, or whether this is a best practice for volunteers is separate from what
is currently in the regs.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Eclipse, I looked through the MARP's blotter and saw where at least three lieutenant colonels were either extended or demoted, then appealed through the MARP process. The MARP said it had no jursidiction, which made sense to me.

And I thought the "retribution" definition could be further twisted to mean things that aren't retributive (the language was written by someone in Alabama, obviously).

Your explanation makes perfect sense, and I readily accept it. That said, why can't the 35-3 offer clear guidance? Why was it written vaguely (or vacuously, as the case may be)? Of course, those are rhetorical questions, but they're valid and someone with authority should lay out at least some general guidelines. I know as a lieutenant colonel of several years, I'd want to know WHY I stand where I stand if I was still temporary... or that I was even in an extended probationary period to begin with.

[Eclipse]

I dunno - I've argued for years that the language of all the regs needs to be much more specific, laymen-accessible,
and hold people accountable, but here we are.

This gets back to the "how you treat volunteers" aspect of the discussion.  Its takes 10-15 years, at least, of fair
activity to get to Lt Col.  I don't understand how leaders can believe that people with that level of initiative are going to
stick around if they feel they have been treated unfairly.  And as part of that, how CAP can afford to lose the investment of
time, training, and yes, money, that has been expended in those members over some insignia they don't even supply, and that
confers no authority or compensation.  It takes ten years to grow these people.

We're not talking about careers here.  This isn't a "cash the check and suck it up" situation. We're talking about
how people spend their valuable free time, and usually are paying to do it at that.

The real question is how is anyone >not< qualified even put up to start with?  Why aren't the expectations set properly
when they are Lts?  When you join the military, there is no specific expectation that you, or anyone else, will
retire as an O-5 or a Chief, but in CAP, the insinuation is on the table from day-1 that if you make the effort,
and follow the rules, everyone can be a Lt Colonel someday.

Check the boxes, write the checks, show up regularly. Boom goes the dynamite. Stay at the squadron, do your staff
job, thank you for your time.

But then as members move up to the FGs, there starts to be whispers and discussions about "standards" and
"expectations", even though none of these exist anywhere in a practical sense.

A big part of this is CCs who don't want to have uncomfottable conversations, so they click people through regardless
of their actual abilities, in the same way some school systems pass students on to the next grade because it's easier then
dealing with the fallout.  This is a disserve to everyone, and many times these people become the fodder of hallway whispers
"How the heck did he ever make Major?"  "Why do people put up with him, he's clueless."

But no one tells >him< he's clueless.  He's not doing much, doesn't get corrected when he's wrong (easier just to
ignore him), and his section of the SUI or CI is something no one wants to do, and can be completed with two reports, so
he somehow gets an outstanding even though he's really not done anything but file paper.

He does that for 10 years, then when it's promo time, he's told "You're not ready..." What?

Most would say it's reasonable that Majs and Lt Cols should be moving out of squadrons and up to Groups, Wings, and Region,
but because CAP is as much a social situation as a service, people just want to stay at the squadron their whole
careers and hang with the people they know.   In my case, I mentioned the other day that I had a clock over my shoulder
and needed to start talking about my replacement and where I'd look next, and I got a couple of "Why would you want to leave?"
looks.

Technically you can't even be eligible for an FGO promotion if you haven't served at a wing level because most specialties
require that tenure for Master levels, but with CAP being so short-handed, we have members doing ADY jobs all over the place,
which sets up both circular reporting relationships as well as "breaking" the need to transfer to higher HQ for promotions.

If the expectation will be such 10 years down the line, then CAP should make it clear from day one that members who
choose to serve locally only will top out at Captain under normal circumstances, and that includes the CCs.  That's a proper
grade for a "company", thus the term "company grade".  The "back down to the squadron" mentality has to stop, and in the
rare case an FGO has to assume squadron command, it's temporary by reg, and only until the new CC is found.

Lt Cols should not be squadron CCs, nor should Majors.  Not if you want the grade to have weight and make sense.  By that level
your scope should be much larger, and if you don't want the scope, you don't get the grade.

But until we ramp up by 50+%, and stop this "you can do everything and anything in CAP" underlying thread, this is not going to
change.

[dwb]

Lt Cols should not be squadron CCs, nor should Majors.  Not if you want the grade to have weight and make sense.  By that level your scope should be much larger, and if you don't want the scope, you don't get the grade.

Eh, that would be true if we had some kind of "up or out" rule, but we don't.

Really long-serving members are going to move up the echelons, that's true, but they're also likely to move back down then back up again. And people serve at multiple echelons concurrently.

With the exception of Col+ and special promotions, rank is divorced from duty assignment because that's what serves the culture of the organization. Someone can serve at Wing or Region, then their kid decides to join the program so they go back to the squadron level to help out. We don't take rank away from those people, nor should we.

I was a squadron commander 10+ years ago, as a Capt. I may be a squadron commander again in the future (lord help me if I am). I've got a lot of years left, it's silly to take the black-and-white view that "Lt Cols shouldn't be squadron commanders".

The "back down to the squadron" mentality has to stop

Many reasonable minds would disagree with this sentiment. With people serving 50+ years, you'd be foolish to tell them they're not allowed to change their level of involvement to suit their availability as they move through life.

[Chappie]

Lt Cols should not be squadron CCs, nor should Majors.  Not if you want the grade to have weight and make sense.  By that level your scope should be much larger, and if you don't want the scope, you don't get the grade.

Eh, that would be true if we had some kind of "up or out" rule, but we don't.

Really long-serving members are going to move up the echelons, that's true, but they're also likely to move back down then back up again. And people serve at multiple echelons concurrently.

With the exception of Col+ and special promotions, rank is divorced from duty assignment because that's what serves the culture of the organization. Someone can serve at Wing or Region, then their kid decides to join the program so they go back to the squadron level to help out. We don't take rank away from those people, nor should we.

I was a squadron commander 10+ years ago, as a Capt. I may be a squadron commander again in the future (lord help me if I am). I've got a lot of years left, it's silly to take the black-and-white view that "Lt Cols shouldn't be squadron commanders".

The "back down to the squadron" mentality has to stop

Many reasonable minds would disagree with this sentiment. With people serving 50+ years, you'd be foolish to tell them they're not allowed to change their level of involvement to suit their availability as they move through life.

While the military has the "up and out" mentality/culture, that is not part of the CAP corporation culture - nor should it be.   We are a group of volunteers committing to serve our local communities and our country.  Yes, it is true that often as one advances in the Professional Development there are greater places of responsibility that come with the rank on the shoulder.  From my personal experience and observations, I have noticed that there are some that aspire to higher levels of responsibility -- and pursuing the PD program equips them for that.  On the other hand, I have noticed that there are others who pursue the PD program...receive the rank that goes with fulfilling the requirements -- yet do not aspire or want to serve at higher levels.   It's a matter of personal choice.   In my case, I have been a Lt Col for several years now and have been privileged to serve at Wing, Region and National levels.   There have been a couple of times that there was a time frame between serving at one of the higher levels and the next.   Guess where I served...back at the local squadron (notice I did not say "back DOWN").   If fact, when the time permits, you will find me at the local squadron.   Regardless of the rank earned or bestowed, there are needs in CAP that need to be met....and we should be willing to serve in a capacity that meets that need.  If the local squadron has a chaplain (of CDI) assigned, I will be there to assist and mentor...but in most situations there isn't a chaplain or CDI assigned.  And that's where this Lt Col will be   It is not a "demotion" rather it is an opportunity to serve.

[Eclipse]

An organizaiton without an "up or out" culture, should not have "up or out grade", which the military model is.

That, or stop pretending that promotions imply increased responsibility.

[SarDragon]

Last time  I looked, we don't have up or out grade. If someone wants to stop promoting at a specific grade, there is no mechanism in place to dissuade it. I am stuck at Major, and no one local to me seems to mind. I have reached my "level of incompetence," and see no need to overreach my skill set.

Sent from my phone.

[Eclipse]

Last time  I looked, we don't have up or out grade.

No, we don't - that's the problem.

The military model CAP emulates, the one we project to the world, and the one which is randomly applied as requiring
"more responsibility for advancement" is, an "up and model", and that's why CAP's grade has always been broken,
and the inconsistent way its applied cause issues.

Part of any "fix", including trying in add an enlisted corps, has to address this inconsistency in the grade expectations
vs. real-world application.

[SarDragon]

Last time  I looked, we don't have up or out grade.

No, we don't - that's the problem.

The military model CAP emulates, the one we project to the world, and the one which is randomly applied as requiring
"more responsibility for advancement" is, an "up and model", and that's why CAP's grade has always been broken,
and the inconsistent way its applied cause issues.

Part of any "fix", including trying in add an enlisted corps, has to address this inconsistency in the grade expectations
vs. real-world application.

And I don't see that we need up or out.

The military is billet driven, to a great extent, and there are end strength limitations. There are many instances where someone in a small community has to retire or die for a promotion billet to open up. There is also high year tenure, so you can hang around so long, and then you're out. That happened to My Sweetie - she reached 24 years in, and hadn't made E-8. She was not allowed to continue, and retired. Had I not retired when I did, I would have been pushed out at 23, as an E-6. That's where up or out comes into play.

CAP is not like this. You can have as many, or few, of any grade as happen to promote, and it has little effect on things overall. I doubt that we will ever be in a position where we have too many people, so up or out won't be needed.

[Eclipse]

And I don't see that we need up or out.

I'm not either, and if that's the case, CAP needs to either:

Discontinue placing inconsistent expectations of "more responsibility" on members when they go to promote to field grades,
and simply treat them as indicators of accomplishment and time.

Or

Set a requirement that if you want to be promoted to FG, then you have to accept "up or out" permanently.

At its current state of manning, and considering membership trends, the organization would collapse at the local level
if it moved to an "up or out" philosophy. So accepting that, the leadership should address the issues of alienation and
discontent caused when members who have held up their corner for a decade are suddenly inexplicably unqualified to
write a check to VG for new insignia, based purely on the subjective "not ready" or "stepping back" as is often the case.

I have seen a number of highly qualified members who spent their time serving others and ignoring their own PD.
I've said before that this is a bad idea as it sets a poor example and also comes with a fair amount of risk, but it is
still allowed to continue.

So they go on their happy way running units and activities, and don't feel they have the time to document their
own work to get the credit.  It's only after a successful tour and between assignments that they take some time for
themselves to document and get credit for all the hard work.

They put in the PD, it's all signed and delivered, and then they are told because they haven't (yet) accepted a new
CAP job of increased scope, they don't qualify for the next grade.

Now you have a highly qualified member who deserves the recognition of the next grade, sitting back saying,
"if this how they treat me?"  Maybe I have better things to do.

And too many find something else, and leave.

[FW]

Whether one has no grade, or wears two stars on their shoulders, an active adult member in CAP is "just" a senior member.  Grade serves no function in CAP any longer. Commanders, and staff officers have badges to wear showing their expertise and/or authority.  National Staff, Command Council, and CSAG members have more bling today than ever before. It all looks good, and Vanguard is very happy.

At this point, I think CAP grade would be relevant only if it indicates level of PD achievement; Col, and Flag Grades reserved for appropriate command level.   

[Alaric]

And I don't see that we need up or out.

I'm not either, and if that's the case, CAP needs to either:

Discontinue placing inconsistent expectations of "more responsibility" on members when they go to promote to field grades,
and simply treat them as indicators of accomplishment and time.

Or

Set a requirement that if you want to be promoted to FG, then you have to accept "up or out" permanently.

At its current state of manning, and considering membership trends, the organization would collapse at the local level
if it moved to an "up or out" philosophy. So accepting that, the leadership should address the issues of alienation and
discontent caused when members who have held up their corner for a decade are suddenly inexplicably unqualified to
write a check to VG for new insignia, based purely on the subjective "not ready" or "stepping back" as is often the case.

I have seen a number of highly qualified members who spent their time serving others and ignoring their own PD.
I've said before that this is a bad idea as it sets a poor example and also comes with a fair amount of risk, but it is
still allowed to continue.

So they go on their happy way running units and activities, and don't feel they have the time to document their
own work to get the credit.  It's only after a successful tour and between assignments that they take some time for
themselves to document and get credit for all the hard work.

They put in the PD, it's all signed and delivered, and then they are told because they haven't (yet) accepted a new
CAP job of increased scope, they don't qualify for the next grade.

Now you have a highly qualified member who deserves the recognition of the next grade, sitting back saying,
"if this how they treat me?"  Maybe I have better things to do.

And too many find something else, and leave.

The problem with the "up or out permanently" philosophy is what do you do with them when their term is done.  Example:  All Wing Staff are appointed at the discretion of the Wing Commander.  At the beginning of the new Wing Commander's term Captain Doe is assigned Chief of Staff and since he is qualified promoted to Major.  4 years go by, a new Wing Commander comes in, and does not want Major Doe in a staff position.  Do we kick him out of the organization?  Demote him though he did his job?  Until and unless we become a military organization with a set number of billets, and there are fewer ways to get grade, I think we need to stop getting wrapped around the axle on this

[Spam]

I think we absolutely do get wrapped around the axle on this. In my personal instance, I made LTC at age 29, while in a Squadron commanders billet in MDWG; the then-Chief of Staff, with an Army officers background, apparently disapproved of promoting someone so young into that grade, and when the opposition didn't work, made that displeasure clear. He walked down the aisle at a commanders call and literally dropped the paperwork in my lap and walked off - no "congrats", no ceremony, no recognition at all - which somewhat incensed my brother COs.  I could see that he had had problems reconciling his (professional) officers mental model of what a silver leaf wearer should be, versus my status at the time, so I chose not to take all this personally. Someone told me that they thought he would have had grounds to deny it, had I not had the additional "Baraka" of serving as a unit/CC (in a 20-1 billet "authorized" for LTC).


I question a business model for a volunteer organization that tinkers with our "pay" (recognition, praise, rewarding further assignments, etc.) in such ways.  We then wonder why we have issues retaining leaders and are stuck with the same old guys decade after decade?


V/R
Spam

[Eclipse]

Until and unless we become a military organization with a set number of billets, and there are fewer ways to get grade, I think we need to stop getting wrapped around the axle on this

I don't disagree with this, in which case CAP needs to remove the subjective from the promotion requirements and stop playing "gotcha" games.
It's not fair to benefit from someone's time and treasure for 10-15 years and then say "hmm, wish you hdd done more, we'll get back to you..."

Promotions should be "assumed approved unless otherwise indicated", with the "otherwise indicated" being so rare as to never happen.

Also, better adherence to the rules and regs at lower levels would also help negate issues at the higher ones. 
Many times the disapproval or "slow downs" are because "he just checked the boxes".  Fair enough.  Make checking those boxes
actually take consistent effort, with the side benefit being a much stronger and better educated cadre of staff.

The amount of time, effort, and member initiative wasted on the entire promotion system is just a shame, especially since it
literally serve none of the missions, but often becomes a detriment.

And while you can say "well, if you don't like it, don't participate", that's fine on an individual basis, but as a whole, clearly the
collective membership wants to play.

Even as we speak, you have a contingent saying "let's move away from grade or just have it as an
indicator of time and PD" while another group is trying to create a whole 'nother tier with supposed "weight".

This is akin to the similar issue where one 5 members show up to a meeting in a golf shirt and 5 show up in service dress
and they are both "right".

Schizophrenia just makes everyone in the room nervous, even when you're alone.

[USACAP]

Yep.

Promotions should be "assumed approved unless otherwise indicated", with the "otherwise indicated" being so rare as to never happen.

Also, better adherence to the rules and regs at lower levels would also help negate issues at the higher ones. 
Many times the disapproval or "slow downs" are because "he just checked the boxes".  Fair enough.  Make checking those boxes
actually take consistent effort, with the side benefit being a much stronger and better educated cadre of staff.

The amount of time, effort, and member initiative wasted on the entire promotion system is just a shame, especially since it
literally serve none of the missions, but often becomes a detriment.

[BHartman007]

...He's supposed to be semi-active out in Colorado or something, waiting for another chance to go up.

He's in Houston, and very active. Should be going up in the next couple of years.

[Spam]

...He's supposed to be semi-active out in Colorado or something, waiting for another chance to go up.

He's in Houston, and very active. Should be going up in the next couple of years.

Yeah, good guy, remembered fondly here in ATL. He participated in the KSC/CCAFS cadet special activity this summer - he had s'mores on the beach Friday night with the cadets.  My oldest son was one of the cadet participants - he is jazzed about following me into a career in aerospace, returned to school with a vengeance, and was inducted into NHS today. Imagine, if you were a science/technology minded cadet, if a former cadet now turned astronaut showed up to have snacks on the beach with you after a week of motivation to study hard, stay on school, challenge the science and math, and be a productive citizen and taxpayer.

Nice, huh?

I honestly believe that former cadets have an inherent mission to give something back to those younger brothers and sisters behind us; COL Boe is right up there doing that. Semper Vigilans.


V/R
Spam

[Майор Хаткевич]

I honestly believe that former cadets have an inherent mission to give something back to those younger brothers and sisters behind us; COL Boe is right up there doing that. Semper Vigilans.


V/R
Spam

This one hits home. There's only a few other SMs of my vintage who were cadets with me. I'm glad to have them onboard, but sorely miss the input of others. It's just hard to get 20-30somethings back to CAP for some reason. Personally, my main goal was to give back at least a little bit of what I got out of the program. At least at the start.