CAP Talk

A co-worker of mine was recently commissioned in the Georgia National Guard. She has been in the Guard for about 11 years. She stated to me that they have inquired about people she knows who would be good candidates for a commission. I have read before that there is a state that only allows an associates versus bachelors for a LDO commission. Any ideas who thoughts.

Quote from: Poll Text
"all of the requirements"

I guess it would depend on what the requirements were and how it would affect what I do in the CAP vs. what I do now.

What would be the reasons for taking a commission in a volunteer organization other than affirming your commitment to that organization?

That would be like offering a lifetime membership in the way the NRA does, throw them 500 bones and get a nice leather jacket. CAP could offer lifetime memberships that would act as a commission.

Does it help me accomplish CAP's missions any better?   If the answer is "probably not" then I don't know if I need to waste too much time on it.  I'd rather spend time working to improve some functional aspect of the organization, rather than fancy up the technical terms for our membership.

Perhaps my question is misunderstood. I am spekaing a an Active Duty or Reserve Commission in one of the Armed Forces not a CAP Commission.

Well, if I wanted to join the military, and I met all the criteria for a commission, then YES  I would want one.

edited to say: I am not sure what service has the most 'liberal' requirements.

I'd accept one in a New York minute ... but I doubt they'll relax the standards that far.  I'll be 49 next week, so even if I met the physical requirements, I'd be too old.

Jack

In Georgia, your only requirement to go to the Georgia Military Institute, which is the state OCS program, is 60 credit hours (associates degree), ASVAB GT of 110, and either complete your college degree for a bachelors or obtain 805 SAT/19 ACT.

Not the highest standards. Amazing that the state requires higher standards for the State Defense Force than the state and NGB require for then National Guard.

Quote from: gallagheria on September 19, 2007, 03:46:03 PM
In Georgia, your only requirement to go to the Georgia Military Institute, which is the state OCS program, is 60 credit hours (associates degree), ASVAB GT of 110, and either complete your college degree for a bachelors or obtain 805 SAT/19 ACT.

Not the highest standards. Amazing that the state requires higher standards for the State Defense Force than the state and NGB require for then National Guard.

I wish I had known that many years ago. I would have changed mine an gone on to the commissioning part. I will be forty next month and am to old. I have 9 years of total service. Besides my wife would scream her head off at the mention. Anyone know a recruiter? heheh

I CAP was to truly "augment the USAF," it is most logical that the CAP officer rank should be automatic.  I can see maybe an elisted rank or NCO, if a CAP officer qualified as such.

In addition, CAP officers in USAF roles woudl best be made into more traditionally non-combatant maybe homeside service...like recruiters or base functionaries.

I mean, unless there was some sort of BASIC TRAINING, I think an average CAP officer suddenly finding themself in Quatar with little training (no matter what that person's role is) is asking for trouble...if not caualties.

Quote from: gallagheria on September 19, 2007, 03:46:03 PM
In Georgia, your only requirement to go to the Georgia Military Institute, which is the state OCS program, is 60 credit hours (associates degree), ASVAB GT of 110, and either complete your college degree for a bachelors or obtain 805 SAT/19 ACT.

Not the highest standards. Amazing that the state requires higher standards for the State Defense Force than the state and NGB require for then National Guard.

Your kidding me?  And I wondered why NG had to "retrain" before going overseas. 

So If I just took my SAT (and got the almost minimum in math and verbal), then did community college, and receive a very low ASVAB score I too could have been a Georgia National Guard Officer?  That is the reason we need a standardized baseline requirement for anyone wishing to be a Military Officer.  At the very least a Bachelors degree, geez, come on GEORGIA!  I worked my ass off to be an Officer (as in early morning study sessions with a math tutor, constant running, Part time job to pay for things my scholarship did not cover).  To top it all off, I gave up 2 summers, a few trips to Mexico and Puerto Rico with my friends for spring break and a whole lot of time I could have been boozing with every other person on campus. 

I am just jealous I guess.  So in Georgia they are now awarding Commissions to the Friends of Current Officers from what I read above.  Pretty soon we will just be able to buy a commission, or at the very least send away for one from Nebraska  >:D

well, it is not just Georgia. There are Military Junior Colleges (either 5 or 6 nationwide) that the U.S. Army has approved and you commission in just 2 years with an associates. So let's not just bash Georgia. Besides, I am now in the State Defense Force and the TAG requires our officers to have a four year degree and then OCS, if they are not prior-service officers. Amazing you can commission easier in the Guard than in the reserve support for the Guard.

I am not sure what state you are in, but I think most states are about the same. The NGB afterall regulates it.

I just checked both California and Texas--both only require associates degree as well.

^  Thats new to me.  I guess it would all be about the same.  I did not mean to bash Georgia too hard.  I am surprised that it would be easier to receive a Guard Commission than an SDF one.  Wow. 

Those Military Junior Colleges do commission in 2 years with an associates, but the Reserves makes you get a bachelors within 2 years after completing your OBC.  I wonder if the Georgia Guard has a similar stipulation??

The CAARNG OCS program is based at Camp San Luis Obispo.  While a min. of 60 semester units are required for admission 90 semester units are required to be completed for commissioning.  The graduate is then required to obtain a BA/BS within 2 yrs of commissioning

Quote from: caphistorian on September 19, 2007, 01:56:11 PM
A co-worker of mine was recently commissioned in the Georgia National Guard. She has been in the Guard for about 11 years. She stated to me that they have inquired about people she knows who would be good candidates for a commission. I have read before that there is a state that only allows an associates versus bachelors for a LDO commission. Any ideas who thoughts.

Being a trauma trained RN with EMT-P experience I know where I'd end up and can't afford the pay cut  :'(

I remember when most CAP pilots were Warrant Officers, staff was different, I think The Air Force and the National guard would have less heart burn with that relationship.
I would be more comfortable as a WO 2 or WO3, I would love to get retirement points at least too. And where is Toto, he ran under the scarecrow.

Quote from: caphistorian on September 19, 2007, 04:25:46 PM
I wish I had known that many years ago. I would have changed mine an gone on to the commissioning part. I will be forty next month and am to old. I have 9 years of total service. Besides my wife would scream her head off at the mention. Anyone know a recruiter? heheh

With that active duty time under your belt, you probably aren't too old. If you're seriously thinking about it, talk to a recruiter. That nine years already counts toward retirement, you could take a advantage of it.

Besides, officers make some decent money during a drill weekend. Where else are you gonna work on a weekend and make almost 400 bucks? I'm sure your wife wouldn't mind you having some more of your own spendng money.  ;D

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 20, 2007, 02:13:09 PM

Quote from: caphistorian on September 19, 2007, 04:25:46 PM
I wish I had known that many years ago. I would have changed mine an gone on to the commissioning part. I will be forty next month and am to old. I have 9 years of total service. Besides my wife would scream her head off at the mention. Anyone know a recruiter? heheh

With that active duty time under your belt, you probably aren't too old. If you're seriously thinking about it, talk to a recruiter. That nine years already counts toward retirement, you could take a advantage of it.

Besides, officers make some decent money during a drill weekend. Where else are you gonna work on a weekend and make almost 400 bucks? I'm sure your wife wouldn't mind you having some more of your own spendng money.  ;D

I really appreciate the thought but in the last couple of years I have had knee replacement surgery on the right side and neck surgery twice. Even though I get around great I would probably get medically disqualified. The money is OK but would have to double for me to match.

Quote from: caphistorian on September 19, 2007, 02:39:10 PM
Perhaps my question is misunderstood. I am spekaing a an Active Duty or Reserve Commission in one of the Armed Forces not a CAP Commission.

Already hold a commission in the U.S. Army - Retired Reserve.  60 years young and still charging forward (I hope). 

Quote from: ColonelJack on September 19, 2007, 03:21:16 PM
I'd accept one in a New York minute ... but I doubt they'll relax the standards that far.  I'll be 49 next week, so even if I met the physical requirements, I'd be too old.

Jack

Ahh . . to be 49 again! ;D

The requirements listed are set by the Army and the National Guard Bureau. Not by the state. These requirements are standard throughout the United States. You forget that if the Officer fails to achive his/her Bachelor's degree within two years the comission is withdrawn for failure to meet the requirements. These people do not walk in off the street. All have to already be a member of the National Guard and have passed several boards before attending the course which is 15 months long.

Not exactly true. Officer candidates are not required to be prior-service. On the technicality that all officer candidates must enlist and then go to OCS, yes they are enlisted, but even ROTC cadets and USMA cadets technically enlist as cadets before receiving their commission. So that is not true that you must be prior-service to go to OCS.

Then there are the MJC's, and anyone straight out of high school is eligible to go to those, and they commission in 2 years with an associates as well.

Quote from: gallagheria on September 20, 2007, 09:45:21 PM
Not exactly true. Officer candidates are not required to be prior-service. On the technicality that all officer candidates must enlist and then go to OCS, yes they are enlisted, but even ROTC cadets and USMA cadets technically enlist as cadets before receiving their commission. So that is not true that you must be prior-service to go to OCS.

Then there are the MJC's, and anyone straight out of high school is eligible to go to those, and they commission in 2 years with an associates as well.

Just a note . . . received an Honorable Discharge with the Grade of E-5 prior to commissioning as 2LT through ROTC.  My only prior service was 4 years of ROTC and the attendant requirements.

Quote from: Ricochet13 on September 21, 2007, 04:40:54 AM

Quote from: gallagheria on September 20, 2007, 09:45:21 PM
Not exactly true. Officer candidates are not required to be prior-service. On the technicality that all officer candidates must enlist and then go to OCS, yes they are enlisted, but even ROTC cadets and USMA cadets technically enlist as cadets before receiving their commission. So that is not true that you must be prior-service to go to OCS.

Then there are the MJC's, and anyone straight out of high school is eligible to go to those, and they commission in 2 years with an associates as well.

Just a note . . . received an Honorable Discharge with the Grade of E-5 prior to commissioning as 2LT through ROTC.  My only prior service was 4 years of ROTC and the attendant requirements.

??  That does not make any sense.  Cadets are enlisted in the grade of CADET on the form, and then are held in the reserves until Commissioning.  Were you an SMP Cadet?  That is the only way I could think that you would be discharged, from a reserve drilling unit.  How long ago was this, was the first question I should have asked!

Here is a question. Is there anyway to get a waiver processed for having had asthma as a kid - but not as an adult?

Quote from: mikeylikey on September 21, 2007, 06:21:50 AM

Quote from: Ricochet13 on September 21, 2007, 04:40:54 AM

Quote from: gallagheria on September 20, 2007, 09:45:21 PM
Not exactly true. Officer candidates are not required to be prior-service. On the technicality that all officer candidates must enlist and then go to OCS, yes they are enlisted, but even ROTC cadets and USMA cadets technically enlist as cadets before receiving their commission. So that is not true that you must be prior-service to go to OCS.

Then there are the MJC's, and anyone straight out of high school is eligible to go to those, and they commission in 2 years with an associates as well.

Just a note . . . received an Honorable Discharge with the Grade of E-5 prior to commissioning as 2LT through ROTC.  My only prior service was 4 years of ROTC and the attendant requirements.

??  That does not make any sense.  Cadets are enlisted in the grade of CADET on the form, and then are held in the reserves until Commissioning.  Were you an SMP Cadet?  That is the only way I could think that you would be discharged, from a reserve drilling unit.  How long ago was this, was the first question I should have asked!

Not sure if this is what they are talking about, because I never did SMP. However, the Army changed SMP to allow all cadets who did SMP to receive credit toward their pay (but not retirement) when they commissioned. So if you enlisted in a Guard unit and contracted ROTC, you would have been exempt from both basic and AIT.

I have never heard of a cadet in SMP getting a formal discharge from the National Guard but then again I have never asked. In reality, a cadet in SMP (a true cadet in SMP, not just a Guardsman who is enlisted taking MS I or II classes, who has gone to basic and AIT, and then maybe later contracts to be an actual cadet), doe snot even belong to the Guard. You are officially in the Guard, but Army regulations prohibit a contracted cadets deployment. So you may drill with the Guard and be paid as an E-5, but you are a cadet in the Army Reserve basically being lent to the Guard unit (unless you contract guaranteed reserve).     

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on September 21, 2007, 10:43:12 AM
Here is a question. Is there anyway to get a waiver processed for having had asthma as a kid - but not as an adult?

Considering there are waivers for almost everything, it might be possible. The only real way to know is to talk to a recruiter. There are some recruiters that will do everything possible to get you in if you really want to join up. There are others that will simply tell you no so they don't have to do the paperwork. The only way to know is to try.

Quote from: caphistorian on September 19, 2007, 01:56:11 PM
A co-worker of mine was recently commissioned in the Georgia National Guard. She has been in the Guard for about 11 years. She stated to me that they have inquired about people she knows who would be good candidates for a commission. I have read before that there is a state that only allows an associates versus bachelors for a LDO commission. Any ideas who thoughts.

At one point, the California Air Guard was looking for navigators and would commission with an associate degree.

That's what they approached me with while I was with the CANG at the time (1985-1986).  I politely declined.

What exactly was the situation of CAP members during WWII? Were they given commissions as Auxiliary Officers?
Has something like this ever been considered?
Or more to the point would there be any positives or negatives to issuing SM's "Commissions" in the Auxiliary? (Part-time Aux status not withstanding)

The Army SMP ROTC option cadet can receive retirement credit if they met the point per year requirement for retirement while a dual member.  The change was made in 2000 or 2001.  The SMP would get a discharge since it was a change in status from enlisted to commissioned.  The discharge certificate usually showed the rank of E-5 Cadet. 

In my state, for a time, all SMP cadets were "enlisted" personnel in our National Guard, and would be discharged with a NGB-22 and get a certificate.  The funny thing was, is that they were all demoted from E-5 to E-3 when discharged.  Never knew why they did that here, but everyone's NGB22 and Discharge certificate read E-3... for whatever reason. And, mind you, this did not matter if they were prior service or non-prior service.  Some actually had been E-5 or E-6 before going ROTC and becoming SMP... I recall their being peeved about getting an E-3 discharge... but... in the end... they were officers... so I guess it worked out OK...

I'm not sure why this issue is causing anyone consternation.

If a cadet in ROTC is receiving pay and benefits, he must be in some military status.  If he is not commissioned and does not hold a warrant, there is only one military status left, that of enlisted.

If a person is enlisted, he cannot be an officer.  That's why on the day prior to his officer appointment, he will be discharged from the military.  The reason for discharge is "To accept appointment as 2LT," which will invariably be dated the next day.

I don't know why a person would be an E-5 Cadet, then discharged as an E-3, unless his "Permanent" rank was PFC, and he was administratively bumped to E-5 as a Cadet.  If he dropped out of ROTC and had to serve his contracted time as an enlisted person, he would probably be dropped to PFC in that case.   

If a ROTC cadet dropped it depends on how long he was a ROTC cadet as to his grade. Completing three years of ROTC used to provide E-5 grade. I haven't seen the new regulations.

Well, that would explain why an early-commissioned ROTC cadet with 2 years of college is discharged as an E-3.

My BBF in AZ was a 2LT USA Res., @20 because she went to NMMI. She returned home to Long Beach, CA,. finished her schooling and was changed to regular Army, she was Capt. when she resigned her commission, to be a full time mom.

AS for me I would be happy just to serve my country in any origination like CAP, as I feel at 47 I am too old to get a real commission. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 13, 2007, 01:49:55 PM
I'm not sure why this issue is causing anyone consternation.

If a cadet in ROTC is receiving pay and benefits, he must be in some military status.  If he is not commissioned and does not hold a warrant, there is only one military status left, that of enlisted.

If a person is enlisted, he cannot be an officer.  That's why on the day prior to his officer appointment, he will be discharged from the military.  The reason for discharge is "To accept appointment as 2LT," which will invariably be dated the next day.

I don't know why a person would be an E-5 Cadet, then discharged as an E-3, unless his "Permanent" rank was PFC, and he was administratively bumped to E-5 as a Cadet.  If he dropped out of ROTC and had to serve his contracted time as an enlisted person, he would probably be dropped to PFC in that case.   

Everyone is getting "payed at E-5" and the actual contract E-1 that MOST ROTC cadets sign.  They will be discharged from ROTC, and enter AD as an E-1 if the military chooses, no matter if their contract says "while they are an SMP Cadet or just plain cadet they will be paid at E-5.  However, most that leave the program end up paying DFAS for their studnet loans if they were on scholarship.  Right now, I had one cadet leave and his monthly payment for his scholarship recoupment is $101.54 for over $32,000 worth of debt.  Not a bad deal if I say so myself.  Better than most private lendors and pell grants.  He knew what he was doing all along.

I think we lost sight of what a Commission is all about: it's an 'office' (hence the term officer) that get's it's authority from the President.  Commissions are signed by the President, whereas Warrants and NCO appoinments are signed by the Secretary of the particular branch.

As an officer, you are the President's representative, with certain legal powers and responsibilities thereof.

All of which has little relevance to members of an organization that is 'sometimes' an Air Force Auxiliary, and all-of-the-time a corporation.  I'm not trying to be a wet-blanket, that's just the way it is.

"Officership" is a state of mind; a way of life that is years in the making through vigorous study, and trial & error character development and experience.  I'd like to think of each of us as a work-in-progress to that end.

Whether military or CAP, if you got it, folks will notice.  If you don't, even the prettiest parchment attesting to the "special trust and confidence" from the President, Nat'l CC, or Grand Poobah isn't going to give it to you...

If your are focused on our missions, and have a genuine interest and concern for your fellow CAP member, then you are already well on you way, commissioned or not.

That's what counts.

^^   :clap: :clap:

Extremely well said!

I think there should be Auxiliary Commissioned Officers in each Armed Service.  They are the non-paid, volunteers who if needed would fill in spots left vacant because of some event.  Then they would be moved to a paid status.  I think Australia and the UK and Canada do this, anyone back me up on that??

I think you are right, Mikey.  As I recall, persons in the UK, Canada, etc. can serve in Auxiliary positions.  Most are former officers.  In Canada they operate the Air Cadet Program.  Officers who are non-selected for promotion can still serve, and get promoted in Auxiliary slots.

I'm not fully clued-in on all the details, but I have talked to such officers at "Dinings-in" and the feature I thought best is that in the Canadian Air Cadet Program, the officers are NEVER recruited "Off the street" as we in CAP do.  All of them come from the Canadian Forces.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 20, 2007, 04:57:00 PM
I think you are right, Mikey.  As I recall, persons in the UK, Canada, etc. can serve in Auxiliary positions.  Most are former officers.  In Canada they operate the Air Cadet Program.  Officers who are non-selected for promotion can still serve, and get promoted in Auxiliary slots.

I'm not fully clued-in on all the details, but I have talked to such officers at "Dinings-in" and the feature I thought best is that in the Canadian Air Cadet Program, the officers are NEVER recruited "Off the street" as we in CAP do.  All of them come from the Canadian Forces.

Thats true, However, from what I know of the program, while the Officers DO come from the CF, the requirements (physical and academic) are relaxed. So it is a bit of a misnomer.. Canadian Forces uses the term CIC-CF (Cadet Instructor Cadre- Canadian Forces)   Britains version of this is the
Royal (Navy, Air Force, Army) Volunteer Reserve - Training

In Canada, CIC Officer Candidates complete a 10 day OCS followed by a week long course in their respective specialty track. Once done they receive a limited duty Commission.
While they do not get paid per se, they still get per diems and reimbursement like we do for certain items. And Officer privileges. Also, they do not fall under the local version of the UCMJ nor can they give orders to Active Duty subordinates.
But in the end it is still true that they are Commissioned Officers in the Military in an Aux status.

I assume that what the poll is asking is whether or not people would be willing to join CAP if they had to follow the same rules and regulations and presumably punishments as officers in the armed forces?

With me, it depends on if they also provided some of the same protections, especially employment, to CAP members as they do to National Guard and Reserve members.

I stumbled on to the UK's Air Cadet site, and their seniors have an interesting progression: if you have no prior mil exp, then you become an "instructor" (SM equivalent) for a year (!) then you go to a board to see if you are going to pursue an Officer Track or an NCO/WO track.  Officers are actually commissioned in the RAF Volunteer Reserve, and spend a few weeks at an NCO PME Course or an Officer Basic Course (with pay!)  thereafter they actually recieve pay for the equivalent of two weeks on active duty.  It was really cool....

Unlike America, Civil Defense and Auxiliaries have a very special place in British history since they played a big role when Germany bombed their cities...

Could something like that happen in CAP? Not a chance: part of our appeal to USAF is that we are relatively low-cost and (historically) low-maint.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 20, 2007, 04:57:00 PM
I think you are right, Mikey.  As I recall, persons in the UK, Canada, etc. can serve in Auxiliary positions.  Most are former officers.  In Canada they operate the Air Cadet Program.  Officers who are non-selected for promotion can still serve, and get promoted in Auxiliary slots.

I'm not fully clued-in on all the details, but I have talked to such officers at "Dinings-in" and the feature I thought best is that in the Canadian Air Cadet Program, the officers are NEVER recruited "Off the street" as we in CAP do.  All of them come from the Canadian Forces.

Thats incorrect Major, many, if not most of the Air Training Corps Officer Corp are not former officers.

Let me clear up my initial question because it seems to be veering somewhat.

For example: I will be turning 40 on the 24th of Oct. I have the required college degrees and could be in better shape with a few more workouts and less computer time. I make a good living and have a beautiful home and family. The only way I could afford to return to the reserves is a Commission. I colud do that if I were to go back in for about 5 years and apply, but those 5 years would be damaging financially for me. Beacuse of my work schedule I would lose about $10K dollars a year to go back in enlisted. If I were to go back in as a commissioned officer it would be a smaller loss of about $4K. If for some strange reason I was contacted by a Recruiting Officer about a reserve commission would you take it given the circumstances. As a single person I would say yes and leave. But as a husband and father of two that is used to a different lifestyle I would be tempted to go but wouldnt want to adversely affect my family.

I would not mind being a 40 year old Ensign or 2LT.

Caphistorian:

A couple of factors here.

I have not been active or reserve in the RM for several years, although officially I'm still in the Army, assigned to the "Retired Reserve."  Some of my information will be dated, therefore.

At 40, I think you are too old for a commission.  There may be waivers you can get, but the last I checked into the matter, there was an age limit of 37.5 years waiverable to 39.5 years of age.

Second, if you are going into the Army, will you be getting a direct commission?  Otherwise, will you be going to OCS?  I went through OCS in my late 20's, and it was rough then.  It would have killed me at 40. 

I need more information to advise you.  PM me if you like.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 22, 2007, 03:35:02 PM

A couple of factors here.

At 40, I think you are too old for a commission.  There may be waivers you can get, but the last I checked into the matter, there was an age limit of 37.5 years waiverable to 39.5 years of age.

Second, if you are going into the Army, will you be getting a direct commission?  Otherwise, will you be going to OCS?  I went through OCS in my late 20's, and it was rough then.  It would have killed me at 40. 

This is not something I could do in the real world. I have a total of 9 years of military service between the Navy and the Army. I have talked to a few recruiters off record and was told it was possible but would be hard. The only thing that would really be in my favor would be my specialty which was Cryptology in the Navy and Intelligence in the Army. Both of those are sought after right now. My degrees are in Manufacturing Technology, Business, and Human Resources management but would have to go back for some sort of IT/ Computer Based Degree. I had even thought about and talked to an AF Reserves Recruiter about going in with them but the most they could offer was an E8 with JSTARS but I would have to leave my job for 7 months for thier Air Crew School. My job will support duty in a war zone but will not support a 7 month long school.

Well, I was wondering why CAP couldn't have federally recognized commissions much like the USPHS Commissioned Corps, or NOAA Commissioned Corps.  While they (USPHS/NOAA) are full time, payed federally commissioned officers, they are NOT military unless "militarized" by order of the president.  They wear uniforms as a "uniformed service".  They cannot, from what I understand, give orders to military officers, even if attached to a military component (unless specifically authorized to do so).  Why can't CAP have something like that?  I'd be willing to give up the "corporate status" if it means CAP could have  federal volunteer commissions.  And the USAF DOES pay for our training (professional developmemt, SOS if we want to partake in that, AWC, etc.)  They could restructure the moneys spent for the first few "levels" we presently have to have an OCS--that may even save money!

USCG AUX and USAF AUX--both should have volunteer commissions and officer priveledges--many would be willing to take one and the benefits to volunteer time and energy--we already do now for much less!

OK, my $0.02 on the soap box...

Quote from: NAYBOR on October 23, 2007, 02:48:42 AM
Well, I was wondering why CAP couldn't have federally recognized commissions much like the USPHS Commissioned Corps, or NOAA Commissioned Corps.  While they (USPHS/NOAA) are full time, payed federally commissioned officers, they are NOT military unless "militarized" by order of the president.  They wear uniforms as a "uniformed service".  They cannot, from what I understand, give orders to military officers, even if attached to a military component (unless specifically authorized to do so).  Why can't CAP have something like that?  I'd be willing to give up the "corporate status" if it means CAP could have  federal volunteer commissions.  And the USAF DOES pay for our training (professional developmemt, SOS if we want to partake in that, AWC, etc.)  They could restructure the moneys spent for the first few "levels" we presently have to have an OCS--that may even save money!

USCG AUX and USAF AUX--both should have volunteer commissions and officer priveledges--many would be willing to take one and the benefits to volunteer time and energy--we already do now for much less!

OK, my $0.02 on the soap box...

^^ What he said (couldnt have said it better)

Quote from: NAYBOR on October 23, 2007, 02:48:42 AMThey cannot, from what I understand, give orders to military officers, even if attached to a military component (unless specifically authorized to do so).  Why can't CAP have something like that?

So what's the point then?

Quote from: NAYBOR on October 23, 2007, 02:48:42 AM
USCG AUX and USAF AUX--both should have volunteer commissions and officer privileges--many would be willing to take one and the benefits to volunteer time and energy--we already do now for much less!

Since you can't have us being paid on any level without changing the ENTIRE auxiliary ROI, we have to continue this discussion as unpaid volunteers.

I am very curious as to these "privileges" and "benefits" we would get as Commissioned officers - especially in light of the fact that the commissioned would likely be in the minority, meaning those working for us still wouldn't have to listen.

The whole point and reason for a "commission" is to grant legal, binding authority for the purposes of performing the mission (whatever it is).  That doesn't have any standing with volunteers.

They will still say "Yes, Sir" or "Go salute yourself", based on their personal whims and internal ROI. Whether you are the "Big A" or "Little A" that day won't change that, and those of us who know how to "Shut Up and Color" will still do that as a matter of principle and professionalism, not the commission.

And a shoulder mark without the "CAP" on it isn't going to buy you anymore respect if you can't perform your duties, any more than the RealMilitary® cares now >what< you wear if you are getting it done for them.

I don't see any real benefit to such commissions.  What would it change? 

However, even if there were Commissions, that doesn't necessarily mean the feds have to pay you.  During WWII the CG had a "Temporary Reserve" which included a range of options from unpaid volunteer, part time paid, and full-time paid members that were generally recruited from the ranks of the CG Aux.  That option is still available to the CG, but there has been no need for it. 

Because, even in the USPHS and NOAA, one salutes other officers of a higher grade, regardless of service.  Officers within the commissioned corps must still obey the officers appointed above them, whether USPHS over USPHS officers, NOAA officers over other NOAA officers, Coast Guard officers over USPHS officers (which DOES happen), etc.  The same structure can be used for CAP.  SDF officers have commissions--all are unpaid voulteers, too.  The point:  a militarized, definite chain of command that people would have to OBEY.  We in CAP, other than getting 2B'd, don't have to obey any one.  The 2B does not cary any legal or civil authority--you just can't be in CAP anymore.  Those with a commission would definitely have to follow a definite chain of command, would carry legal priveldeges, penalties, etc.

The USAF does not use Warrant Officer grades anymore--maybe CAP could use Warrant Officer grades (which has been siggested before), which could be official warrants from the Secretary of the AF--WO1 (present 2d LT), WO 2 (present 1LT), WO 3 (Present Capt), WO 4 (Present Major), WO 5 (Present Lt Col).  Upper level commanders would carry the federal "volunteer" commissions and Chief Warrant officer designations--CW 1 (Present Col), CW 2 (Present Brig Gen), and CW3 (Present Maj. Gen)--ALL within the Air Force.  We would carry federal rank, but with AF warrant officer grades specifically reserved to CAP officers.  And since we are all "technical specialists" within CAP (pilots, observers, medical, IT, etc.), it fits in perfectly with that, too.

Again, just some thoughts.

If you're just trolling for a salute, well, we're done here - they are required today, at least internally.
So is obeying your superiors, etc., etc.

We should not mistake "the ability to quit", with the "lack of a requirement to obey your superiors".
Especially in real-world ES situations, you may cross a line where you cannot quit until you are finished.
You can say "no" before you go, but once you're in, you're in.  Negligence may well have significant civil penalties, as may failure to properly perform a respective duty.

The difference between a commissioned service and non-commissioned service is the ability to say "no" to a lawful order.  But who are you going to order?

Unless 100% of the assets are commissioned or "enlisted", there is no  legal authority, and again, those inclined to accept the extra steps and responsibility of a commission are likely to already be inclined to follow instructions and play ball. You've got to consider that a big chunk of our most valuable assets - our pilots - are captains because they are pilots, and have no interest whatsoever in professional development, so what good is a commissioned unit commander who can't "order" 1/2 his people, perhaps the most important half, to do anything?

The enlisted ranks of the RealMilitary® are legally bound, top to bottom, to obey the lawful orders of their officers, we're not.  And unless you intend to change the face of CAP to a "less voluntary" service, that's not going to change.

Another issue is our non-combatant status - we simply have no reason to "order" anybody to do anything.
An "order" is only necessary to make someone do something they don't want to do - like kill or injure another person.  Our people are involved in benevolent activities which they >want< to be involved in. Rarely do you have to order a SAR pilot to go fly and find someone.

You've used the term "privileges" several times, but haven't detailed one.

Those of us who comport ourselves as officers and gentlemen (i.e. unpaid professionals) already get the respect and courtesies. I get plenty of salutes and "Sirs", and although if you're in a rough spot it can make your day, it generally gets a little unexciting after a while.

We already are afforded access to military facilities and resources - everything I've ever needed, as long as I ask nice and say "please".

While on A-Missions we are afforded a good deal of insurance and workers comp protection, not to mention death benefits from many states.

An increasing number of states are offering job protection to CAP and other volunteer ES agencies (though blanket protection would be nice).

What else do you want, or expect a commission would get you?

Quote from: caphistorian on October 22, 2007, 06:44:29 PM... the most they could offer was an E8 with JSTARS but I would have to leave my job for 7 months for thier Air Crew School. My job will support duty in a war zone but will not support a 7 month long school.

E8 in the door would get my attention.

Can they refuse your service? I would think once you have orders you're locked in - what they have you doing while you're gone isn't their business.

I realize that if you work for a smaller company or are self-employed there are economic realities to having you gone, but if you got deployed it would probably be longer, or in spurts adding up to more.

Let me say it has nothing to do with a salute or wanting to be a "real officer". This question was based on economics for the most part. I am not trying to get or steer towards AD or RES commissions in the CAP. Not my intent. I dont have to have a Commission to make myself feel good. Purely a questions of Economics not ego. I work for Procter and Gamble and allready make a good living (11 years).

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 22, 2007, 03:35:02 PM
Caphistorian:

A couple of factors here.

I have not been active or reserve in the RM for several years, although officially I'm still in the Army, assigned to the "Retired Reserve."  Some of my information will be dated, therefore.

At 40, I think you are too old for a commission.  There may be waivers you can get, but the last I checked into the matter, there was an age limit of 37.5 years waiverable to 39.5 years of age.

Second, if you are going into the Army, will you be getting a direct commission?  Otherwise, will you be going to OCS?  I went through OCS in my late 20's, and it was rough then.  It would have killed me at 40. 

I need more information to advise you.  PM me if you like.

Last time I heard, the AF Reserve was commissioning Registered Nurses (B.S. degree) up to age 47.

YMMV

Jim

Eclipse, there is no need or want for a commission--I already have one.  It's just for RECOGNITION--nothing more, nothing less.  My experience is that those in the military who know about CAP keep CAP people at arms length, and those that don't could give two terds about CAP.  Official rank may give those who volunteer in CAP a little more of a step up from "terd" in some eyes, and most definitely give a espirit de corps, both in CAP and the military, of being "part of the team" again.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2007, 04:54:39 AM


You've used the term "privileges" several times, but haven't detailed one.

Those of us who comport ourselves as officers and gentlemen (i.e. unpaid professionals) already get the respect and courtesies. I get plenty of salutes and "Sirs", and although if you're in a rough spot it can make your day, it generally gets a little unexciting after a while.

We already are afforded access to military facilities and resources - everything I've ever needed, as long as I ask nice and say "please".

While on A-Missions we are afforded a good deal of insurance and workers comp protection, not to mention death benefits from many states.

An increasing number of states are offering job protection to CAP and other volunteer ES agencies (though blanket protection would be nice).

What else do you want, or expect a commission would get you?

Well, maybe you do fine at Great Lakes, but some of us have to jump through a lot of hoops to get on base. So for starters ... no hassle base access.

Second (ties in with one) it would eliminate any questions as to whether or not we have the right to use the clothing and sales store. Or the Flight Club  or anything else , without having to look up regs while the folks in the line behind you get upset at the delay. (not saying we need full privileges at the BX, Walmart is cheaper anyway)

Third how about the same job protection Iowa has - for every state- (having a commission would do this as we'd be under the guard and reserve act)

POSSIBLY a Uniform allowance.

Legitimacy in the eyes of the other USAF components (and certain sherriffs deputies when we are out on that 3am ELT hunt. Also more of a team atmosphere. You mention you get plenty of salutes at the NTC but Ive never had one in either my CAP or USCG Aux uniform. - not saying its important, just stating fact-

Personal Recognition and possibly the ability to become eligible for USAF ribbons/medals/awards.

I can think of some more but I dont have the time.

I'm reasonably sure that no one in the US Public Health Service or NOAA go to jail if they refuse an "order".  Why not?  Because although they are uniformed, they are not a member of the Armed Forces and I doubt (but admit, that I don't know for sure), that they are not subject to UCMJ. 

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 23, 2007, 04:07:43 PMYou mention you get plenty of salutes at the NTC but Ive never had one in either my CAP or USCG Aux uniform. - not saying its important, just stating fact-

You've never received a salute, period, in your CAP uniform, or just from the RealMilitary®?  If the former is true, there are bigger issues there, if its the latter, well those are the breaks.

Legitimacy and recognition don't come from grade - they come from performance.  Plain and simple.  If you or your people aren't getting it, then its time to change the attack pattern and try something new.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 23, 2007, 04:07:43 PM

Well, maybe you do fine at Great Lakes, but some of us have to jump through a lot of hoops to get on base. So for starters ... no hassle base access.

Second (ties in with one) it would eliminate any questions as to whether or not we have the right to use the clothing and sales store. Or the Flight Club  or anything else , without having to look up regs while the folks in the line behind you get upset at the delay. (not saying we need full privileges at the BX, Walmart is cheaper anyway)

Third how about the same job protection Iowa has - for every state- (having a commission would do this as we'd be under the guard and reserve act)

POSSIBLY a Uniform allowance.

Legitimacy in the eyes of the other USAF components (and certain sherriffs deputies when we are out on that 3am ELT hunt. Also more of a team atmosphere. You mention you get plenty of salutes at the NTC but Ive never had one in either my CAP or USCG Aux uniform. - not saying its important, just stating fact-

Personal Recognition and possibly the ability to become eligible for USAF ribbons/medals/awards.

I can think of some more but I dont have the time.
[/quote]

I don't think these require a commission - any USAF Airman gets this stuff.


But past that, here's the deal - why should USAF support such a proposal?  In other words, what is broken about CAP (not in YOUR eyes, but in the eyes of USAF) that would be fixed by handing out commissions?

I agree it would be cool.  But also it ain't gonna happen.



Now, I could see some sort of "official status" for CP folks IF the focus of our program changed from "developing young americans" to "recruiting airmen for USAF."  One could then make an economic case that we could deliver more high quality recruits if we had more official status and support.  But that ain't our mission.  So it also isn't gonna happen.

Your right every airman does get those things. And thats kinda the point.

So aside from a commission (or as the they in Britain, " The Queens Parchment") what can we do to get these things?

I just occurred to me . . . as a commissioned officer, would I have to resign my current commission to accept a U.S. Civil Air Patrol commission? ???

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 23, 2007, 11:51:40 PM
Your right every airman does get those things. And thats kinda the point.

So aside from a commission (or as the they in Britain, " The Queens Parchment") what can we do to get these things?

Well, you could enlist...

Seriously, to get additional bennies from Big Blue, you have to show them how giving us X will give them something they want - and they want nothing from us.

I direct you to the Statement of Work, or SoW.  For government contractors (of which we are one) it is the document that determines what you can and can't do.

I don't have a link at hand, but the SoW doesn't require us to do anything for the AF.  We must have a safety program and we can do stuff for the AF if it wants, but there is no mandatory work required of us.

The AF is fighting a war, mostly with the Army and Navy for funding, but occasionally overseas as well.  If you want them to take money from their warfighting programs and drop it on us, you have to make it worth their while.

QuoteCAP shall conduct air/ground search and rescue (SAR) and disaster relief (DR) in response to man-made events or natural disasters.

Most of the SoW uses langauge such as "the AF may request", but language such as the obove is used in regards to CD and other missions.  Don't see how it is relevant to the argument at hand though.

I'm personally not sure where the discussion is going.

A "Commission" is a letter from the President, advising anybody who might have reason to know that:

1.  The President has "Special trust and confidence" in a certain person.

2.  That person is appointed to a certain officer rank  in a stated military component.

3.  That person is to obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over him.

4.  That person is to do a good, diligent, job, no matter what duty is assigned.

5.  Officers and others of lesser rank are to render him obedience.

A "Warrant" says the same thing, but is a letter from the service secretary.

Neither the President, nor the Secretary of the Air Force, appoints CAP officers.  Are you asking for:

1.  The National Commander, who DOES appoint CAP officers, to give you a commission/appointment letter?

2.  The US Civil Air Patrol to become a stand-alone force like USPHS and USCG, and then have the President commission USCAP officers?

3.  Have the President commission CAP officers into the Air Force?

4.  Have the Secretary of the Air Force appoint CAP officers on warrants?

Pick one, and we can discuss the pros and cons.  Right now, I don't know what you want.

Three or Four would be best ... And - knowing some might abuse it- in such a way that we couldnt damage the CAP - USAF relationship.

In other words a commission, but not one that would only allow for orders to be given within CAP. AE- we could not order USAF personnel or the like.
- Such as how Canada or Great Britain commission the Adults in their cadet programs.

One might work, but doubtful. Two is scary and shouldnt happen.

Instead of a Commission, the AIR FORCE should just give us MISSIONS!  I think we had less missions this past quarter than in the previous 5 years.  Give me a day to break the stats out.

Quote from: mikeylikey on October 24, 2007, 05:20:08 AM
Instead of a Commission, the AIR FORCE should just give us MISSIONS! 

MISSIONS!!   :angel:     Please Sir, may I have another!!!!

Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2007, 03:13:44 AM

QuoteCAP shall conduct air/ground search and rescue (SAR) and disaster relief (DR) in response to man-made events or natural disasters.

Most of the SoW uses langauge such as "the AF may request", but language such as the obove is used in regards to CD and other missions.  Don't see how it is relevant to the argument at hand though.

Here's how it's relevant

Let's say CAP wants stuff from USAF.  Like mebbe PX priviledges, commissions, whatever.

So...USAF asks CAP "why do we want to spend effort (and maybe money) to give you that?"

What's CAP's answer?

The only good answer would be "If you give us this stuff, we can do a better job at doing what you want us to do."

USAF would then say one of two things:

1.  "Prove it.  Explain how giving you what you want will get us more of what we want.  Build the business case"

and

2.  "Actually, you're doing a good enough job doing what we want you do to right now>  We're basically happy.  Why should we change anything?"



Without good responses to these two things, any request for bennies is DOA.

Now, if USAF was unhappy with us; if we were failing in meeing the standards in the statement of work, then they'd probably be more open to helping us do better.


But, basically, in their eyes CAP ain't broke - why fix it?


Don't get me wrong - as a 25+ yr member I'd love to see a more official, professional, dare I say more military CAP.  But I doubt it's going to happen without someone at the top (above CAP NHQ) demanding more performance out of CAP.  That, and only that, would lead to real change inside the organization.

I still don't know what you want.

IF you have a "Commission," or a warrant, that ONLY allows you to give orders to CAP folk, why not have the Natl Cdr issue the commission?  That's what we have now, so just write it down on high-quality paper suitable for framing.

And... Eclipse, we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

I think what he wants is for CAP officers to have command authority. The problem with that is that even if CAP officers had a federal commission, their command would be restricted to position, not rank. Even in the Army, command is decided by position, not rank. It just so happens that higher ranking officers usually have higher command, but not always.

A lieutenant colonel cannot tell a major what to do if the major is not under his command. So even if CAP officers were commissioned, their positions would restrict them to command only those under them. We would then need to align our appointment standards with the rest of the uniformed services, which is basically a four-year degree (two-year in some reserve cases), and completing of some sort of schooling (ROTC, Academy, federal or state OCS, etc.). Direct appointment could be derived with some sort of schooling program sponsored by the Air Force. The whole dynamics of the CAP would need to be changed to allow only those who meet the qualifications to become officers, rather than this automatic promotion to 2LT when you hit a certain age. We would need NCO's and most likely warrant officers for the pilots and specialists we have who have no college education.

Then we would need to ensure that our officers meet certain standards for health, age, and physical fitness. That is the biggest problem I see in the state defense forces right now. Although they are commissioned at the state level (just like National Guard officers who receive dual commissions--state and federal) and are recognized under federal law, they are prime examples of what happens when you have no standardization.

Then there is a problem with having active duty military personnel or even reservists in the CAP. Federal law and regulation both prohibit active duty and reservists from being in the SDF and Armed Forces at the same time. Just like a person cannot be enlisted in the Navy Reserves and commissioned in the Regular Army at the same time, we could not allow a person to be commissioned in the CAP and Army at the same time or (even enlisted). We might be able to come up with a scheme that allows them to be advisers or organization members, but certainly not a part of the Uniformed Services as a commissioned officer while in another branch thereof.

So we need to be careful how we frame this or what we are asking for.

Like to see something similar to the Air Training Corps RAFVR(T) system, which appears to also be similar to that of Canada, Australia etc... The commission is real enough with associated privilages... and the members are in enough to warrant same... but still appropriately different enough for the purposes of interfacing with the regulars

...That and they make you retire from uniformed service when you reach retirement age.  >:D

Mike:

What you are asking for would not be all that difficult.

I'm not sure if it would require activation of the Legislative Liasion Squadron or not.

What would have to happen is that CAP would have to be considered a COMPONENT of the Air Force, rather than an auxiliary.  Or, for the purists out there, maybe an "Auxiliary Component."

The Air Force would then be composed of 4 components:

1.  The Regular Air Force.

2.  The Air Force Reserve.

3.  The Air National Guard.

4.  The Air Force Auxiliary.

"The President of the United States, reposing special trust and confidence in the valor, patriotism, fidelity, and abilities of

ANDREW ANTHONY APE[mess]

I do appoint him

SECOND LIEUTENANT, AUXILIARY

In the

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

etc., etc., etc."

(The major, with a grand, sweeping gesture, jots this idea onto page 43 of his "To-Do list for when I am National Commander.")

Quote from: gallagheria on October 24, 2007, 03:42:35 PM
I think what he wants is for CAP officers to have command authority. The problem with that is that even if CAP officers had a federal commission, their command would be restricted to position, not rank. Even in the Army, command is decided by position, not rank. It just so happens that higher ranking officers usually have higher command, but not always.

A lieutenant colonel cannot tell a major what to do if the major is not under his command. So even if CAP officers were commissioned, their positions would restrict them to command only those under them. We would then need to align our appointment standards with the rest of the uniformed services, which is basically a four-year degree (two-year in some reserve cases), and completing of some sort of schooling (ROTC, Academy, federal or state OCS, etc.). Direct appointment could be derived with some sort of schooling program sponsored by the Air Force. The whole dynamics of the CAP would need to be changed to allow only those who meet the qualifications to become officers, rather than this automatic promotion to 2LT when you hit a certain age. We would need NCO's and most likely warrant officers for the pilots and specialists we have who have no college education.

Your example is not entirely correct.

The description you give is correct for most day-to-day military matters.  However, all military members have an intrinsic authority and responsibility that goes with their grade.

When I am an E-8 on AD orders and see a situation involving E-7's and below (of any service) that requires immediate correction, I am required to take charge and they are required to "respect my authority."  If I do not act, I can be held accountable for their actions and my inaction.

Ironically, what you describe is absolutely correct when applied to CAP, with the exception of Cadets.  I never have authority based on my CAP grade - on based on the position I hold.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 02:03:14 PM
we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

Quote from: Short Field on October 24, 2007, 06:47:56 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 02:03:14 PM
we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

Obviously, Shortfield, you have never worked with me.

Assuming that I order 1st Lt Scanner to a ground mission, and he refuses to go.

I will immediately have him sign off the mission and go home.  After the mission I will write a letter to his commander, with a copy to his Group and Wing commanders describing his insubordination and recommending that the officer be removed from the CAP on a 2B.

If you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Short Field on October 24, 2007, 06:47:56 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 02:03:14 PM
we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

Obviously, Shortfield, you have never worked with me.

Assuming that I order 1st Lt Scanner to a ground mission, and he refuses to go.

I will immediately have him sign off the mission and go home.  After the mission I will write a letter to his commander, with a copy to his Group and Wing commanders describing his insubordination and recommending that the officer be removed from the CAP on a 2B.

If you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

:o

OK, now that's just plain bat crazy.

This is not the 'nam or Iraq where you can just hand out "in lieu of" taskings and send them outside the wire, this is CAP.

If Lt Scanner shows up, you're well within your rights to say, "look, I don't need another scanner, but will you take a ground team tasking instead?"  The Lt can decide he's not equipped, not trained or just not up for that tasking and decline.

If he does, you're within your rights to say, "well, I won't have work for you today - you can either head home or hang out until your ride is ready to leave, but you need to stay out of the way."

But insubordination?  Unless his refusal came out, "Bite me, IC-boy: homey don't play with ground pukes!" you have no grounds for your charges.  If a letter like that came across my desk when I was Sdqn or Group cc, I'd forward it to Wing with a "someone needs to adjust this guy's meds" notation.

I have to go with Kach on this one.
Once upon a time CAP had "Mission Coordinators"; whether this was an Air Force preference or some other reason, I never did find out.

However, most 'MCs" I knew were CAP lt colonels, often Group CCs or Wing DO types, and they expected personnel to do what they were told.

Since we went to ICS we have "Incident Commanders".

This should make it clear, even to the densest among us, that this officer is in charge.

For a brief period our Core Values were virtually identical to USAF -- we used 'Service Before Self' before we changed over to 'Volunteer Service' -- and I really think that said it all: we volunteer for the mission, or we volunteer for nothing.

No reasonable IC is going to ask any member to undertake a task for which that member is unqualified, uncertified, untrained, poorly equipped or not properly prepared. There is simply too much hazard, risk, and liability involved.

Beyond that limitation, however, I for one, as an IC myself, would rather the prima donnas who are only going to do what they choose to do, rather than support the team effort, stay home.

Not just from the mission....I'd personally prefer they stayed home permanently.

And as a former Group CC myself, whenever one of my people gave static to an IC, activity commander, course director or project officer, if the unit commander failed to take corrective action (all I was really looking for was counseling, at least in the initial instance -- but some squadron commanders are afraid they'll lose member if they say anything!), that individual was called to Group HQ for a little chat.

With all being said
I have flown on some missions that had a LT running it who has no flight time has directed pilots to fly in IMC for an ELT at an Airport, I have witnessed ICs verbally abuse senior members including calling them names in front of dozens of mission pilots.Or Refuse to correct a dangerous situation. NO the IC system has dangerous flaws and I believe we need to go back to a structured command system with a CAP senior officer in charge over the IC during a mission. Recent Air Force directives gives the state Air force CAP director the authority to shut a IC down and shut a mission down at any time because of numerous past incidents. Now we have some exceptional ICs, I would fly into an Alien space invasion, but they are usually senior experienced CAP pilots. I don't think you can be an IC without lots of REAL mission time.

This is deverting.  Fair warning.

Quote from: MIKE on October 25, 2007, 03:25:48 PM
This is diverting.  Fair warning.

Agreed to a certain extent, except that a lot of members really believe a commission would enable them to force volunteers to do something they otherwise do not want to. 

Um, no.  If you're a volunteer, you don't >have< to do anything, and the powers that be are going to be reluctant to terminate membership, barring additional circumstances, for that reason.  Make CAP "less volunteer", and you are changing the scope and nature of the organization beyond which this thread can cover.

There's also people walking into typical bad-argument territory wherein in the exception would define the rule.

I really don't see a commision for CAP officers. I like the officer rank, but I don't need to be a commissioned CAP officer to get my job done in this organization.

How it is now works fine, I do my job, and probably the only time my "officer authority" really carries any weight is with cadets. At those times, I'm really only concerned with safety issues or inappropriate behaviour. Any issue with any member (officer or cadet) that would require me to deal with it by force of law (which I refer to the authority of the commision, not any police authority) would probably result in the problem member being terminated anyway. A person may make a choice that could result in their termination, it shouldn't lead to other extensive issues for the person that gave the order.

A commision would substantially change how our command structure works. If we went to commisions we would probably need our own version of the UCMJ to deal with disobedience to orders. In the military, if someone disobeys an order,  that could lead to an arrest of the individual. Do we really want to create such a system? It's really unnecessary, and would create some serious new hassles.

If we want an honorary type of commision, a piece of paper that looks pretty, why not get it from the Air Force? It would go a long way to the Air Force recognizing our organization in general, and far less hassle than getting the President to sign them. It would also show any organization we deal with where the members' loyalty should lie.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 08:48:55 PM
IIf you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

::) And which rule (or CAP Regulation) was broken when he says, "I don't feel good, I think I will just go home?"    IMSAFE?

CAP only has volunteers and no UCMJ.  2b action is for when members violate CAP regulations.  Leading volunteers to accomplish a mission takes a lot more leadership ability than needed in the RM to accomplish the same mission.    

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 25, 2007, 04:27:53 PM
If we want an honorary type of commision, a piece of paper that looks pretty, why not get it from the Air Force?

Texas Wing has a nice promotion certifcate here:  http://www.texascadet.org/resources/miscresources/certificates/index.html

Another member has posted an even nicer one someplace on this website but I couldn't find it.

The amount of respect any certificate or commission will ever have will be directly porportional to the amount of effort that went into earning it.

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 25, 2007, 04:27:53 PM
A commission would substantially change how our command structure works. If we went to commissions we would probably need our own version of the UCMJ to deal with disobedience to orders. In the military, if someone disobeys an order,  that could lead to an arrest of the individual. Do we really want to create such a system? It's really unnecessary, and would create some serious new hassles.

Absolutely, and people forget that with legal authority comes legal responsibility - responsibility being something that many of our members shy away from.

Turn the high-decibel, 1/2 baked "directives" some of our "less proficient" members spew, which today just gets them in peer-pressured hot water, in to "orders" and it might be the issuer who is ultimately arrested.

You'd also need a reboot of the program for the same reasons an NCO structure will be hard to implement - existing members.

In fact, you may actually make things >worse< because we could wind up with the same issues the RealMilitary® has with new officers - authority without grade.

Today's CAP structure where the entirety of authority comes from command posting and not grade, means that no one without the word "Commander" on their business card has any implied authority (that people think they do is beside the point).

A non-commander Lt. Colonel is owed customs and courtesies, nothing more, and can't bring an activity or situation  to a halt based on his shoulder marks.  Not so in the RealMilitary®, where officers and NCO are legally bound to address situations that warrant intervention, with consequences when they don't.

And what about all those members who (truthfully or otherwise) say they aren't interested in the grade, only the activities - no one in the RealMilitary® is allowed to adopt that attitide, every one has some kind of grade on their shoulder or arm, and those who don't progress can generally stay in for a while, but are usually not given the choice slots and activities these members want.

For a commission to ever be more than a CAPTalk thread will require a full re-think of the program, including
a restructure of the grade including NCO's, and a workable idea what to do with existing members who are valued but don't want to play Army.

You folks are constantly confusing a little piece of paper (a Commission) with laws and rules associated with the military.  If the President signs a paper "commissioning" me as a Air Force Auxiliary officer that means exactly diddly squat unless a whole bunch of federal laws are changed.  If that is what you're shooting for, talk about that.   

My guess is that what folks are looking is some combination of 3 things.

1.  Real authority over other CAP members of lesser rank.

2.  Federal recognition and associated priviledges associated with an active commissioned officer of the same grade.

3.  Real federal status (job protection, base access, etc) the same as a national guardsman.



#1 would be nice, but would probably require a temporary grade structure (so that those stepping down the chain don't end up outranking their boss).  Anything else creates too many chiefs and not enough indians.

#2 ain't gonna happen.  Why would USAF (or the president) give us those priviledges?  What benefit is it to them?

#3 is most likely, but would probably take a friend in Congress to push through.

Quote from: Dragoon on October 25, 2007, 06:44:54 PM
My guess is that what folks are looking is some combination of 3 things.

1.  Real authority over other CAP members of lesser rank.

2.  Federal recognition and associated priviledges associated with an active commissioned officer of the same grade.

3.  Real federal status (job protection, base access, etc) the same as a national guardsman.



#1 would be nice, but would probably require a temporary grade structure (so that those stepping down the chain don't end up outranking their boss).  Anything else creates too many chiefs and not enough indians.

#2 ain't gonna happen.  Why would USAF (or the president) give us those privileges?  What benefit is it to them?

#3 is most likely, but would probably take a friend in Congress to push through.

I agree on #1 & 2, and the better effort for #3 is to work on a state level, where it is already happening for some Wings.

It works fine in the UK.

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 25, 2007, 04:27:53 PM


If we want an honorary type of commision, a piece of paper that looks pretty, why not get it from the Air Force? It would go a long way to the Air Force recognizing our organization in general, and far less hassle than getting the President to sign them. It would also show any organization we deal with where the members' loyalty should lie.

This would be a great thing.

Dragoon, I am personally talking about seeing # 3 become a reality. Along with a piece of paper - Commission or Warrant- from the Air Force making it official. Or to look at it another way, a piece of paper by which we officially become CAP Officers and/or NCO's. As it stands the only real piece of evidence of this is our ID card.

Eclipse a Commission or Warrant does not in and of itself give one command authority. Thats not what this is about. This is about being recognized as
Air Force Auxiliary (CAP) Officers.  A nice piece of paper to hang on the wall, and -if possible- job protection to go with it.

The idea is two fold: 
1with a piece of paper commissioning or warranting us as officers in the USAF Aux we CAP  would easily fall under the Guard and Reserve Act giving folks from every state universal job protection
2 It would look nice on the wall and be a step in the direction of the Air Force recognizing us for our work.

NOTE: this would not give us automatic authority over Active duty types. It should not interfer with any "RM" members commission or status - As it carries no weight outside of CAP-  And finally it would NOT give a ranking officer automatic control over someone of lesser rank.

This si a piece of paper saying Lt Jon Doe is an Officer in the USAF Auxilliary, and status as such just might get us job protection.

Job protection?  Protection from what?  Are you seriously suggesting that CAP members should be allowed to take time off of their civilian jobs to do CAP work and be afforded the same protections as Resevists who are activated?

What you are talking about is making CAP the National Guard.  You all want the titles and the pretty wall hangings along with the privilages but without the responsibility or the sacrafice.  Are you ready to deploy like the Guard?  OK, so how much am I going to be paid?  Do I get the GI Bill or student loan repayment?  You will never have the same status or be looked at equally by the people you are trying to be equal with.  You want a piece of paper that carries no weight?  Then print one up yourself if it doesnt mean anything.

by SAR-EMT
#2 It would look nice on the wall and be a step in the direction of the Air Force recognizing us for our work.


There you go folks, this is the center of your argument.  That has got to be one of the most childish statements I have read in a long time.  Is this really about having a plaque?

SAR EMT....what branch of the military were you in and how long did you serve?

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 09:24:30 PM
Job protection?  Protection from what?  Are you seriously suggesting that CAP members should be allowed to take time off of their civilian jobs to do CAP work and be afforded the same protections as Resevists who are activated?

Why shouldn't we have job protection? I wouldn't mind being able to go to a mission, and not having to worry about whether or not I've been asking for too much time off work. Don't really know about any and all other benefits, but I certainly don't see a problem with job protection.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 09:24:30 PM
What you are talking about is making CAP the National Guard.  You all want the titles and the pretty wall hangings along with the privilages but without the responsibility or the sacrafice.  Are you ready to deploy like the Guard?  OK, so how much am I going to be paid?  Do I get the GI Bill or student loan repayment?  You will never have the same status or be looked at equally by the people you are trying to be equal with...

No one is talking about GI Bill or loan repayment, just a little piece of mind when they go out on a mission. It doesn't matter that we don't get paid, it's still a service to the community.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 09:24:30 PM

Quoteby SAR-EMT
#2 It would look nice on the wall and be a step in the direction of the Air Force recognizing us for our work.


There you go folks, this is the center of your argument.  That has got to be one of the most childish statements I have read in a long time.  Is this really about having a plaque?

Nobody mentioned a plaque, let's not blow it out of proportion. Military personnel get things related to their enlistment all the time. Most personnel decs in the military have an accompanying certificate with the individuals name on it. I don't know what military officers get, but I imagine it's something. There are people in CAP that would just like to have something to show other than an ID card. What's so hard about a piece of paper?

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 09:24:30 PMSAR EMT....what branch of the military were you in and how long did you serve?

How is that even relevant to the discussion at hand? Military service does not mean a person is a perfect slot in  for CAP. It may help in some circumstances, but both a person new to the military, and a person new to CAP have to grow into those programs. And even one that comes to the other still has a transition to make.

We shouldnt have job protection because we are a volunteer organization and dont have nearly the stresses a deployed military member is subject to.  You can quite and go home, they cant.  Again, you want the same protections and perks of  a military member without the work and sacrafice of being in the military.

With this discussion, it is very relevant whether someone served in the military.  There are people who never served who are wanting to turn CAP into the National Guard and have no idea what they are talking about.  They want commissions and NCO's and pieces of paper to hang on the wall and say themselves that these certs will mean nothing.  What else do you want other than an ID card?  I mean really?  What else is it that will make you feel better about your service to CAP?  It makes me question why some of you are here?  Is it really for certificates and someone telling you that you did a good job?

What you guys are proposing IS the National Guard.  Plaques were mentioned.  Hawk said himself in his post that he wanted "a nice piece of paper to hang on the wall".  If you want certificates, CAP has plenty of certs.  The Air Force is in a war.  It isnt up to them to pat us on the back. If you want that, walk down the recruiter and sign up.  If your now to old,  sorry you missed the boat.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 09:24:30 PM
Job protection?  Protection from what?  Are you seriously suggesting that CAP members should be allowed to take time off of their civilian jobs to do CAP work and be afforded the same protections as Reservists who are activated?

Yes - especially since I still have to lose wages or use vacation time to go.  This is far from unreasonable.  Common sense would tell you we are not talking about unit meetings or even scheduled bivouacs, but emergency's like Columbia, Katrina, and Fossett.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 10:40:03 PM
We shouldn't have job protection because we are a volunteer organization and don't have nearly the stresses a deployed military member is subject to.  You can quite and go home, they cant.  Again, you want the same protections and perks of  a military member without the work and sacrifice of being in the military.

On a 2am ELT, yes, deployed to  MS for a week+ on 24 hours notice, no. In some cases we have MORE stress because it >COSTS< us money to "help".

And BTW - Iowa and several other states already have job protection under emergency circumstances for CAP people - either as a direct reference in a state law, or as a generic reference to "volunteer emergency works during a declared state of emergency."

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 10:40:03 PM
We shouldnt have job protection because we are a volunteer organization and dont have nearly the stresses a deployed military member is subject to.  You can quite and go home, they cant.  Again, you want the same protections and perks of  a military member without the work and sacrafice of being in the military.

I'm not advocating that, just simple job protection. I don't think someone should have to make a choice between quitting their job and going on a mission. You are the only one talking about additional benefits, I don't think anyone else has mentioned those.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 10:40:03 PMWith this discussion, it is very relevant whether someone served in the military.  There are people who never served who are wanting to turn CAP into the National Guard and have no idea what they are talking about.  They want commissions and NCO's and pieces of paper to hang on the wall and say themselves that these certs will mean nothing.  What else do you want other than an ID card?  I mean really?  What else is it that will make you feel better about your service to CAP?  It makes me question why some of you are here?  Is it really for certificates and someone telling you that you did a good job?

There are people that want to be told that they've done a good job. There's nothing wrong with it.

Something one commander of mine told me is that those little decs and pieces of bling are the only pay that CAP personnel get. It took me a while to understand that because I'm used to the military where I do get paid. I tell people that they do a good job when they do. It's one of those things that helps in a volunteer organization.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 25, 2007, 10:40:03 PM
What you guys are proposing IS the National Guard.  Plaques were mentioned.  Hawk said himself in his post that he wanted "a nice piece of paper to hang on the wall". 

No one is proposing turning CAP into the Guard. It won't work, and most logical thinkers here know it won't work. You seem to be the one stuck on this.

Second, you need to reread my post. I didn't say I wanted a "nice piece of paper to hang on the wall", I said "There are people in CAP that would just like to have something to show other than an ID card. What's so hard about a piece of paper?" I was pointing out that some people would like recognition, and that a piece of paper is not really all that difficult a thing. Personally, I don't need one to do what I need to.

Please, pay attention to the posts. I'll accept that you were mistaken, so no issues. But please make sure you reference properly. I don't want to get hammered for something I didn't actually say.

I never said that you said it.....SAR EMT did, thats why I quoted him. So Ill accept that you were mistaken.
-----------------------

Added later
OK...I re read it....I inserted "Hawk" when it should have been SAR EMT.  My mistake.

Quote from: Short Field on October 25, 2007, 04:32:53 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 24, 2007, 08:48:55 PM
IIf you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

::) And which rule (or CAP Regulation) was broken when he says, "I don't feel good, I think I will just go home?"    IMSAFE?

CAP only has volunteers and no UCMJ.  2b action is for when members violate CAP regulations.  Leading volunteers to accomplish a mission takes a lot more leadership ability than needed in the RM to accomplish the same mission.    

OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:11:08 AM
OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Buy it or not, this is the world in which we live....

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM
[Yes - especially since I still have to lose wages or use vacation time to go.  ....

It is still optional and your choice.  And what about us poor self-employed folks?  Even the self-employed Reserve and National Guard folks got no help as they watch their businesses go down the drain while they were deployed.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM

... On a 2am ELT, yes, deployed to  MS for a week+ on 24 hours notice, no. In some cases we have MORE stress because it >COSTS< us money to "help". ....

Sorry, no comparison.  And PLEASE, don't even try to compare the stress of losing money if you decide to volunteer to help to the stress that a short-notice deployment has on a service member.  I saw too many families fall apart because one member was deployed too much.   Or the stress of dual military families where the spouses either both get deployed at once or take turns being deployed.  No comparison so don't go there.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM

And BTW - Iowa and several other states already have job protection under emergency circumstances for CAP people

Super idea and something we need to work on for other states to adopt as well.

As a former Red Cross volunteer, we in the CAP get a lot more benefits, plus get to wear neat uniforms with military style rank and earn ribbons that are also sold as medals (WOW, just earned a Red Service Ribbon but it is really a Medal!!).  All they get is a Red Cross windbreaker, T-shirt, or polo shirt - which they have to buy.  In the Red Cross, middle of the night call-outs for house fires were routine and you were always training and preparing for the big disaster - with a short-notice deployment.  They also miss out on the rank thing - except these really low payed full time employees could always boss you around.  All they get is the satisfaction of helping others.  All things considered, CAP members really have it good.

Besides, I would be really surprised if your neighbors, co-workers, or patons at the local Wal-Mart can tell you don't have a "Commission" - unless they are RM.  And if you don't do what it takes to earn one in the RM, they still will not believe you have a "Real Commission".

There shoudl be job protection for anyone who chooses to stop their "regular" lives and go and help others, especially organizations like the ARC and CAP, who deploy regularly for long periods of time.

Any national ES asset should have the same protection.

Your comparison of CAP to the RealMilitary® in this regard is simply a troll to start an argument, I hope no one else will take the bait. 

Quote from: Short Field on October 26, 2007, 05:25:32 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM
[Yes - especially since I still have to lose wages or use vacation time to go.  ....

It is still optional and your choice.  And what about us poor self-employed folks?  Even the self-employed Reserve and National Guard folks got no help as they watch their businesses go down the drain while they were deployed.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM

... On a 2am ELT, yes, deployed to  MS for a week+ on 24 hours notice, no. In some cases we have MORE stress because it >COSTS< us money to "help". ....

Sorry, no comparison.  And PLEASE, don't even try to compare the stress of losing money if you decide to volunteer to help to the stress that a short-notice deployment has on a service member.  I saw too many families fall apart because one member was deployed too much.   Or the stress of dual military families where the spouses either both get deployed at once or take turns being deployed.  No comparison so don't go there.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2007, 10:56:58 PM

And BTW - Iowa and several other states already have job protection under emergency circumstances for CAP people

Super idea and something we need to work on for other states to adopt as well.

As a former Red Cross volunteer, we in the CAP get a lot more benefits, plus get to wear neat uniforms with military style rank and earn ribbons that are also sold as medals (WOW, just earned a Red Service Ribbon but it is really a Medal!!).  All they get is a Red Cross windbreaker, T-shirt, or polo shirt - which they have to buy.  In the Red Cross, middle of the night call-outs for house fires were routine and you were always training and preparing for the big disaster - with a short-notice deployment.  They also miss out on the rank thing - except these really low payed full time employees could always boss you around.  All they get is the satisfaction of helping others.  All things considered, CAP members really have it good.

Besides, I would be really surprised if your neighbors, co-workers, or patons at the local Wal-Mart can tell you don't have a "Commission" - unless they are RM.  And if you don't do what it takes to earn one in the RM, they still will not believe you have a "Real Commission".

I am an ombudsman with the ESGR, which is an agency under the Secretary of Defense tasked to educate about USERRA and mediate cases arising under it.

It is good for states to have laws that help members of the Armed Forces and even others such as National Guard soldiers under state orders (who are not covered by USERRA under SAD) and others, such as CAP, or SDF, or various volunteer emergency responders who need to leave their civilian job when an emergency occurs.

As of right now, the Civil Air Patrol and the Coast Guard Auxiliary (as well as one of the seven Uniformed Services--the NOAA) are specifically not covered under USERRA. However, USERRA does state that the president may shield ANYONE under USERRA whenever he wants. So if an emergency does occur, and say the Red Cross responds or perhaps various FEMA personnel, they can all be protected at the president's designation.

They just need a policy in place to state who should be covered under what circumstances. If CAP responds to any mission, they should be covered by policy, which the law permits.     

Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:11:08 AM
OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Buy it or not, this is the world in which we live....

Oh, right... that world where "Integrity" is supposed to be a core value!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 12:38:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:11:08 AM
OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Buy it or not, this is the world in which we live....

Oh, right... that world where "Integrity" is supposed to be a core value!

I never said it was "right", just that it was.

I'll come to a mission, sign in, and do whatever they need that day - sometimes I am sought after for a specific qualification, sometimes not.  But (as my "handlers" tell me) the "norm.

Most people come for something specific, and if that skill isn't needed, leave. 

I'd be strongly in favor of policies which required a base staff rating and participation >before< you can fly, and I think >all< pilots should be UDF qualified, and maintain at least that currency.

But again, in a volunteer environment, who's underlying mantra is "you're lucky I showed up at all", stuff like that is just not gonna fly.

Its telling, though, that these conversations about grade and authority always veer into "telling someone what to do..." usually in a mission environment.

When you report to an Air Force mission, as a volunteer with the Air Force Auxiliary,  you voluntarily submit to the authority of those appointed over you.

The boss is called the "Incident COMMANDER," not the "Incident Guy Who Suggests What Jobs You Might Want To Do."

If you can't do that, join the Salvation Army.  Its easier to make Major there, anyway.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 12:38:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:11:08 AM
OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Buy it or not, this is the world in which we live....

Oh, right... that world where "Integrity" is supposed to be a core value!

What's so hard to understand about someone who feels up to sitting in a cockpit for 4 hours but not up for walking a few miles in the woods?  I certainly don't want to be part of the team that has to drag him back out on a litter.

We tell our members how important safety is and self selecting for risk management, then you come on all "Smiling Kach" and waving your 2b's like J. Jonah Jameson on meth.

If someone comes to the mission base to fly and we're without pilots and have something useful that they can do around base, they should probably do it and most of the time they will.  If there isn't something for them to do, why should they stick around? Now, if they don't want to do it, there is nothing that requires them to do it and they certainly have the right to refuse to do it.  However, they will certainly get a reputation of not being a team player and they will probably get called fewer and fewer times.  These situations tend to work themselves out over time and aren't a big deal. 

Can we get this back on track?
Would anyone, other then Flying Pig like to comment on my last post?

okay...

QuoteThe idea is two fold: 
1with a piece of paper commissioning or warranting us as officers in the USAF Aux we CAP  would easily fall under the Guard and Reserve Act giving folks from every state universal job protection

Under what theory do you think this is correct?  How does this make us a member of the Armed Forces?  Like it or not, our id cards with our ranks on them have just as much actual meaning as a little piece of paper that the AF might send out.  It wouldn't change who we are or the federal laws that apply to CAP. 

The Governor of Nebraska gave me a commission in the Nebraskan Navy...

^ We don't need to start that again.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 26, 2007, 06:17:25 PM
Can we get this back on track?
Would anyone, other then Flying Pig like to comment on my last post?

THIS last post?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 25, 2007, 08:16:47 PM
This si a piece of paper saying Lt Jon Doe is an Officer in the USAF Auxilliary, and status as such just might get us job protection.

I'm not into doing much for recognition, but job protection would be nice.  My boss has a hard enough time with not being able to call me on Wednesday nights from 7-9.  You don't want to know his reaction when I told him my cell phone would be off an entire Saturday because I was doing something as frivolous as training in the airplane.  Like it or not, the fear of losing a job does keep a lot of people from volunteering.  It kept me away from CAP for years.  And let's face it, CAP missions aren't something that can be "scheduled".

Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 26, 2007, 02:33:41 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 12:38:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2007, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:11:08 AM
OK, so you are telling me that the guy feels OK if he is assigned to fly, but he's sick if he's assigned to some mission on the ground?  I don't buy it.

Buy it or not, this is the world in which we live....

Oh, right... that world where "Integrity" is supposed to be a core value!

What's so hard to understand about someone who feels up to sitting in a cockpit for 4 hours but not up for walking a few miles in the woods?  I certainly don't want to be part of the team that has to drag him back out on a litter.

We tell our members how important safety is and self selecting for risk management, then you come on all "Smiling Kach" and waving your 2b's like J. Jonah Jameson on meth.

First of all, I did not specify a ground search team.  I said "Ground assignment."  That would include flight line, admin, commo, wherever I needed someone.

Second of all, if he is not physically able to walk a few miles without collapsing, he has no business on an aircrew.  What is he going to do if they have to land and check a large flight line for an ELT?  Call for a golf cart? 

My point is that hen you report to an Air Force mission as a member of the Air Force Auxiliary, you voluntarily place yourself under the command of officers appointed over you to run the mission.  If he says to me that he only wants the "Glory" or "Fun" assignments, I'll tell him he needs to take his immature prima-donna butt out of the CAP and find another place to play his little-kid games.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 10:47:23 PM
Second of all, if he is not physically able to walk a few miles without collapsing, he has no business on an aircrew.  What is he going to do if they have to land and check a large flight line for an ELT?  Call for a golf cart? 

You think every aircrew member is in shape enough to hike around who knows what kind of terrain?  Not trying to start a debate on physical requirements, just saying I can see quite a few reasons where someone could physically be on an aircrew but not a ground team.

The problem we keep nibbling at on multiple threads is: is there a way to get more respect (and hopefully better missions) out of the AF?

The longer I stare at it, the more I think that trying to play "Junior AF" is the wrong way to go.

For example, I've been a military civilian.  I've even deployed, with a uniform and everything.  However, no matter what happened, I was still a little bit outside the system.  That didn't stop me from doing my job, working with, for and over soldiers, but I never pretended I was a soldier.  No grade, no salutes, no misplaced search for recognition as "one of them."

The big question, IMHO, is "would we be better served by an CAP organization structure that dispenses with the military trappings we use that we have stripped of meaning, such as military grade?"

Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 27, 2007, 02:59:42 PM
The problem we keep nibbling at on multiple threads is: is there a way to get more respect (and hopefully better missions) out of the AF?

The longer I stare at it, the more I think that trying to play "Junior AF" is the wrong way to go.

For example, I've been a military civilian.  I've even deployed, with a uniform and everything.  However, no matter what happened, I was still a little bit outside the system.  That didn't stop me from doing my job, working with, for and over soldiers, but I never pretended I was a soldier.  No grade, no salutes, no misplaced search for recognition as "one of them."

The big question, IMHO, is "would we be better served by an CAP organization structure that dispenses with the military trappings we use that we have stripped of meaning, such as military grade?"

Yes!!! I agree.  We spend an enormous amount of time trying to be "one of the boys" and the reality is we never will be.

Quote from: PA Guy on October 28, 2007, 06:18:32 AM
Yes!!! I agree.  We spend an enormous amount of time trying to be "one of the boys" and the reality is we never will be.

All I want is to be respected for my part of the grand scheme.

The only way to garner that respect is with appearance and performance. 

The key to >that< is underselling and over-delivering - a concept that, sadly, many people don't seem to grasp.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 28, 2007, 06:43:39 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on October 28, 2007, 06:18:32 AM
Yes!!! I agree.  We spend an enormous amount of time trying to be "one of the boys" and the reality is we never will be.

All I want is to be respected for my part of the grand scheme.

The only way to garner that respect is with appearance and performance. 

The key to >that< is underselling and over-delivering - a concept that, sadly, many people don't seem to grasp.

On an organizational level, yes, we have suffered some self-inflicted wounds.  Hopefully, the recent emphasis on responsible leadership will address some of that.

On a personal level, how you present yourself has alot to do with how folks treat you: quiet dignity and professional demeanor goes a long way, not to mention knowing what you are talking about.

I think some folks try too hard when they are around military folks: reminds me of the little side-kick dog looking for validation from the Bulldog in the Bugs Bunny Cartoons: "We's pals, right Spike, huh? huh?" 

If folks have an inferiority complex, or don't feel they belong, others, military or otherwise, will smell it a mile away.

I don't have to "fit in" because I'm not in the Air Force: I'm a CAP member, which I would like to think fills a niche in the grand scheme of things, or we would have been disbanded long ago.  I like being a CAP member and will do my best in that capacity, which includes understanding both CAP and USAF missions and functions.  If others don't like it, that's their problem.

I would agree. 

We can't forget that the "military" aspect of CAP is a recruiting and retention aid for some, and just throwing it out would cause some serious ripples through the membership.

That said, if we didn't wear USAF grade, I wonder if we could get permission to get all our guys, even the bearded and fat ones, into USAF uniforms.  I know, for example, that when Army civilians deploy, they put 'em in BDUs/ACUS regardless of their weight, hair length or beards.  Nobody raises and eyebrow, because the insignia on that Army uniform make it clear that this person is an Army CIVILIAN, not a SOLDIER.

I wonder if CAP could work the same way.  If we accepted our role as volunter USAF civilians, rather than semi-air force officers, could we maybe get closer to Big Blue? 

And since our grade structure doesn't really affect the way CAP operates anyway, would going to some sort of non-USAF indicators of training and experience (like flight officer grade, for example) really kill us?

Back when I started participating again in '99, we could wear regular BDUs and green flight suits without rank insignia. That went away a couple of years later when they told us we had to wear blue stuff.

Quote from: SarDragon on October 29, 2007, 08:17:51 PM
Back when I started participating again in '99, we could wear regular BDUs and green flight suits without rank insignia. That went away a couple of years later when they told us we had to wear blue stuff.

That's not exactly accurate.

What was changed was the ability to wear USAF-Style camo BDU's or the sage green flight suite without grade  if you do not meet the CAP weight standard, with the alternative being the blue field uniform or flight suit.

Up until then there was no alternative field uniform for anyone.

By "we" I meant the "fatties and fuzzies". The 1997 version of CAPM 39-1 authorized flight suits w/o grade for "us", and sometime in 1999 or 2000, the wear of BDUs w/o grade was permitted.

Some time after that, the blue stuff became authorized, and the green stuff was disallowed. The new CAPM 39-1 formalized all the prior letter style changes.

Quote from: MIKE on October 26, 2007, 10:11:43 PM
^ We don't need to start that again.

My point wasn't to get people to just go get one of those but that getting a "commission" isn't anything more than a piece of paper if there isn't the authority that comes with it.

CAP is a volunteer organization.  The only reason that people can tell me what to do in CAP is because I LET THEM.  I follow orders and take my duties seriously because I CHOSE TO.  But when it comes down to it someone walking around with an actual commission in CAP is rather ridiculous. 

I wish people would get off the "make me an AF officer" kick and finally realize that CAP is a hobby, not a job.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 30, 2007, 01:42:03 PM
[ and finally realize that CAP is a hobby, not a job.

So right.   ;)  Most states have only one paid CAP employee - and they don't get paid that much.  The rest of us do it because we enjoy it.

How can you fairly call it a "Hobby" when many folks spend twenty or more hours a week on CAP business.
As for everyone talking about how CAP members are just 'civillians' let me remind you of something We are the -sometimes- USAF Auxilliary. In other organizations and other countries that means a great deal more the 'civillian'

Take for example the Coast Guard.
Their primary webpage, and all their internal documents state that the Auxilliarists are something special, and a bit more valuable then the Coast Guard 'Civillians'
USCG civillians wear no uniform and get no special schooling or base privillages. The Aux does. This goes along with a proffessional duty to assist others and educate the public.

The Canadian Forces  Commission the leaders of its Cadet programs.
In GRB they have something called the Vollunteer Reserve. They are "Real Members' of their respective military team. That is to say a recognized part of the service they support.

Civil Air Patrol is the corporate title. What we are is the Air Force Auxilliary. We are a part of the USAF, and I should think a bit more important then the USAF Civillians; if for no other reason then the fact that we do what we do out of the kindness of our hearts without a paycheck and what we do is defined by both Congress and the Air Force itself.  Lastly we wear the Air Force Uniform.
To quote a phrase from my ROTC det. Colonel, we (CAP) is part of the Air Force Team.

Now whether you want to accept what Im saying or go mucking about with an inferiority complex is up to you.

The question before us is, how do we achieve the recognition we desire and what specifically can be gained or lost from such recognition.

How about if this were printed on high-quality paper, and handed out at initial officer appointment and promotions:

The

NATIONAL COMMANDER

of the

UNITED STATES CIVIL AIR PATROL

(cool-looking corporate seal)

To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities of

BENNY BALL BUTTGRABBER

I do appoint

him(her) SECOND LIEUTENANT

in the

UNITED STATES CIVIL AIR PATROL

to date as such from the thirty first day of October two thousand and seven.  This officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position.  And, this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This appointment is to continue in force during the pleasure of the National Commander of the United States Civil Air Patrol, under the provisions of those public laws relating to officers of the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY and the Wing and component thereof in which this appointment is made.

Done at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, this thirty first day of October in the year of our Lord, two thousand and seven, and the Independence of the United States of America, the two hundred and thirty first year.

By the National Commander:


_________ Wing Commander

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 30, 2007, 07:05:31 PM
How can you fairly call it a "Hobby" when many folks spend twenty or more hours a week on CAP business.

How many people spend 20 hours a week working with wood in their garage?  How many people spend 20 hours a week talking on the HAM radios?  How many spend that time playing their favorite sport or working on their antique car or practicing their photography skills or painting/sewing/quilting?  

When you get down to the nitty gritty, it is a hobby and with any hobby there are people who take it more seriously than others?

QuoteAs for everyone talking about how CAP members are just 'civillians' let me remind you of something We are the -sometimes- USAF Auxilliary. In other organizations and other countries that means a great deal more the 'civillian'

True, but no matter what the status is of the corporation, you remain a civlian volunteer of the Civil Air Patrol.

Quote
Take for example the Coast Guard.
Their primary webpage, and all their internal documents state that the Auxilliarists are something special, and a bit more valuable then the Coast Guard 'Civillians'
USCG civillians wear no uniform and get no special schooling or base privillages. The Aux does. This goes along with a proffessional duty to assist others and educate the public.

Who are the "Coast Guard Civilians?"  Contractors that the CG has running the everyday needs of the CG?  It is nice that the CG is acknowledging the volunteer efforts of their auxiliarists and they are right, the auxiliarists are more valuable to the CG than someone who has no experience in what the auxies do.  Just as CAP volunteers are more valuable a search asset than someone who has no training in search.  But I doubt that the AF is going to say that CAP volunteers are more valuable than the AF Civilian contractor who is providing intelligence information to the troops on the ground.

I don't denounce the fact that we are "part of the AF team."  

Quote
The Canadian Forces  Commission the leaders of its Cadet programs.

The last ones I spoke to when they visited during their IACE trip seemed to give the impression that they were similar to ROTC instructors and paid.

Quote
Now whether you want to accept what Im saying or go mucking about with an inferiority complex is up to you.

No inferiority complex here, but I don't consider myself to be an equal to a military O-4, nor should I expect a volunteer to be.  I'm sorry if you take offense to me calling a spade a spade, but I have no problem seeing CAP for what it actually is.

Quote
The question before us is, how do we achieve the recognition we desire and what specifically can be gained or lost from such recognition.

Wouldn't you say that the ones with the inferiority complex are those who go and try to seek out/demand ways of being recognized because they feel as though they derserve/are entitled to something?  I am perfectly happy providing my services "free of charge," what I do is recognition enough for me.  I get to see the difference I make in people's lives.

I'm more than a little uncomfortable calling it a "Hobby," too.  People and organizations depend on us. 

Flying is my hobby.

I volunteer for CAP out of a sense to duty to my country.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 30, 2007, 08:07:37 PM
Who are the "Coast Guard Civilians?"  Contractors that the CG has running the everyday needs of the CG?  It is nice that the CG is acknowledging the volunteer efforts of their auxiliarists and they are right, the auxiliarists are more valuable to the CG than someone who has no experience in what the auxies do.  Just as CAP volunteers are more valuable a search asset than someone who has no training in search.  But I doubt that the AF is going to say that CAP volunteers are more valuable than the AF Civilian contractor who is providing intelligence information to the troops on the ground.

Just a quick clarification, both the CG and AF (as well as all the armed forces) have civilians working as government employees.  These people are an integral part of the functioning of their service.  They are not contractors.

^understood and agree - it was just an example.  :)

Here's the problem

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
How about if this were printed on high-quality paper, and handed out at initial officer appointment and promotions:


(snip)
And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. 

Our grade has no position.  A 2d Lt can command Lt Col's.  As long as we allow that, how can we make the 2d Lt obey his subordinate Lt Col?

Until we fix rank inversion, I can't see how we can give rank any real authority.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
How about if this were printed on high-quality paper, and handed out at initial officer appointment and promotions:

The

NATIONAL COMMANDER

of the

UNITED STATES CIVIL AIR PATROL

(cool-looking corporate seal)

To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities of

BENNY BALL BUTTGRABBER

I do appoint

him(her) SECOND LIEUTENANT

in the

UNITED STATES CIVIL AIR PATROL

to date as such from the thirty first day of October two thousand and seven.  This officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position.  And, this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This appointment is to continue in force during the pleasure of the National Commander of the United States Civil Air Patrol, under the provisions of those public laws relating to officers of the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY and the Wing and component thereof in which this appointment is made.

Done at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, this thirty first day of October in the year of our Lord, two thousand and seven, and the Independence of the United States of America, the two hundred and thirty first year.

By the National Commander:


_________ Wing Commander

   When  I received my first promotion to warrant officer (WO1) I received and still have my Certificate of Appointment which read the same as an USAF Certificate of Appointment for officers. The only difference was it was signed by the national commander and the wing commander. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 08:16:28 PM
I'm more than a little uncomfortable calling it a "Hobby," too.  People and organizations depend on us. 
Flying is my hobby.
I volunteer for CAP out of a sense to duty to my country.

Merriam-Webster Definition:  Hobby - a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation

Sorry but hobby fits. Nothing makes me feel better than working in the squadron - be it a SAR, SAREX, training class, or just office work.  

A fellow member did some nice work on these certificates.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2168.msg43273#msg43273

Quote from: Dragoon on October 30, 2007, 08:49:27 PM
Here's the problem

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
How about if this were printed on high-quality paper, and handed out at initial officer appointment and promotions:


(snip)
And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. 

Our grade has no position.  A 2d Lt can command Lt Col's.  As long as we allow that, how can we make the 2d Lt obey his subordinate Lt Col?

Until we fix rank inversion, I can't see how we can give rank any real authority.

Oooohh!

I see the "Quibble" meter is reading at the maximum level!

If the regulations require that a Lt Col in some situations render obedience to a 2nd Lt, then he is required to do so. 

Next question.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 12:36:19 AM

Quote from: Dragoon on October 30, 2007, 08:49:27 PM
Here's the problem

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
How about if this were printed on high-quality paper, and handed out at initial officer appointment and promotions:


(snip)
And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. 

Our grade has no position.  A 2d Lt can command Lt Col's.  As long as we allow that, how can we make the 2d Lt obey his subordinate Lt Col?

Until we fix rank inversion, I can't see how we can give rank any real authority.

Oooohh!

I see the "Quibble" meter is reading at the maximum level!

If the regulations require that a Lt Col in some situations render obedience to a 2nd Lt, then he is required to do so. 

Next question.

It's not a quibble - I never have to "render such obedience" to anyone based on grade, so this phrase is so much sailboat fuel.

For the purposes of day to day CAP (as opposed to SAR's or projects), I am required to obey 5 people:

- sqdn cc
- group cc
- wing cc
- region cc
- national cc

Now, you may want to thrown in a few deputies and vices (though I probably have enough vices) but that's pretty much it.  Moreover, I don't have to obey them based on grade.

It doesn't matter if they are SRA's or Major Generals: in the chain I obey them, out of the chain I can ignore them.  I don't obey Colonels, I don't even obey wing commanders - I obey _my_ wing commander.

That's CAP as it is, and unless you plan to give inherent authority and responsibility to every guy who has wandered his way to Lt Col, that's the way it's going to stay.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position.  And, this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

I don't see any issues with this statement.  The first key phrase is "render such obedience as is due".  Well, you are talking a CAP rank, not a RM rank so I don't see that a lot of obedience is due unless there are other factors - like it is your squadron commander. 

The second key phrase is "observe and follow such orders and directions .... given ... in accordance with the laws of the United States of America".   Nothing wrong with this as the opposite would be to "NOT observe and follow such orders and directions ... given ... in accordance with the laws of the United States of American".  Just doesn't seem right to not follow the laws of the USA.

Quote from: Short Field on October 31, 2007, 05:04:06 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 30, 2007, 07:51:45 PM
And, I do strictly charge and require those officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position.  And, this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

I don't see any issues with this statement.  The first key phrase is "render such obedience as is due".  Well, you are talking a CAP rank, not a RM rank so I don't see that a lot of obedience is due unless there are other factors - like it is your squadron commander. 

The second key phrase is "observe and follow such orders and directions .... given ... in accordance with the laws of the United States of America".   Nothing wrong with this as the opposite would be to "NOT observe and follow such orders and directions ... given ... in accordance with the laws of the United States of American".  Just doesn't seem right to not follow the laws of the USA.

I suppose if you want a lot of pretty, empty phrases - sure, knock yourself out.

I suppose you could add, "and exercise such superhuman powers granted as a result of this commission, in accordance with the laws of physics."

Comparing this oath to the oath of enlistment, where almost every word has grave import, is like.. I don't know, comparing real military grade to our "tofu oak leaves?"

Exactimundo - why say "render such obedience as is due"  when NONE IS EVER DUE?

And that's the point.  The whole key of a commission or warrant is to establish Authority and Responsibility.

CAP grade grants neither.   Hence a CAP commission just ain't gonna work.

None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 03:08:24 PM
None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I have never said anything about position because a commission is all about granting inherent authority based on grade.  You commission someone to a grade, not a position.

Last time I checked, PIC, IC, GTL, "senior staff officer" and sqdn cc aren't grades, they're positions.

In CAP, authority and responsibility are based on position.  Grade has nothing to do with it.

I can have a jacket with more bling than Bob Hope on a USO tour but unless I'm in a position of authority over another CAP member, I'm not the boss of him.  Giving me a pretty wall hanger commissioning me as a CAP Major isn't going to change that - not even if it's signed by the President and countersigned by Darth Vader.

In CAP, grade means nothing, position means everything.  And that's the name of that tune...

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 03:08:24 PM
None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - every example you cited already has authority granted based on the staff or command position, irrespective to grade.

The debate over SDF, militia etc. From what I found can be call up under federal  law to active duty. Units like the MI VDF age requirement is 17 to 65, OH SDF age 17 to 59, and IN Guard Reserve ages 18 to 65. nay gates age as a consideration for commission for most members. The biggest factor if you receive a commission for the governor or the president you would be governed by the UCMJ. I think that first we must act like professionals and earn the respect of the RM if we want to be given the respect of the grade that you hold. I have been at meeting where junior officers have addressed the wing commander by his/her first name and not by their rank. This was done while cadets were near by. We must give the respect to our own higher ranking officer before we can get the respect from others outside of our organization. This is my opinion.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2007, 03:45:25 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 03:08:24 PM
None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - every example you cited already has authority granted based on the staff or command position, irrespective to grade.

I never contended that such a document conferred any additional authority.  It is just a nice framable document that attests to the confidence of the National Commander in an officer, and directs persons to obey him within the framework of existing law and regulation.

It is something beyond tossing a pair of gray epaulets at a member and saying "Here... you're a lieutenant now."

Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate.  When you get married and pledge in front of God and your friends to love one another there is something in that ceremony that just shacking up seems to lack.  Although both result in cohabitation.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 08:13:13 PM
Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate.

What you have said here is very interesting in that it brings out the two very different worlds that comprise CAP.

Those here who have a background of military service or public service in the nature of police or fire services, probably with few exceptions, understand at a deep level exactly what you mean by that statement. It is no surprise that the military, police and fire organizations are very ceremony, plaque and ribbon/patch oriented groups with many formal traditions and codified behaviors.  Many informal, but no less important, ones too.

Identifying uniforms are worn with accoutrement's that show ability, qualification, standing and experience and one is constantly being judged on quality and performance.  These people live in the world of immediate experience and consequence where decisions made and actions taken on a moment by moment basis have the very real possibility of life-altering outcomes.  For themselves or someone else.  They use tools, devices, weapons and information and (relative to the average citizen) act decisively on a regular basis.  It is the everyday experience of this world.

Living in this world requires order, understanding, responsibility, reliability, respect.  This structure is defined and reinforced by ceremony, recognition and reward and as money rarely enters into the picture the ceremonial presentation of bits of recognition are substituted.  These things are received in the form of ribbons and medals, plaques and public recitation of deeds and honors.

Because those in this world understand, at some level, that they do a job that underpins the very fabric of civil society and makes our life in a functioning civilization possible and sustainable these bits and trinkets and ceremonies are deemed sufficient.  That and the knowledge that they are among the few who can and will do it.  The Marines have made a publicity campaign of this fact "The Few, The Proud"...  The concepts of honor, service and duty are palpable and frame such a life.

Now, everyone work is important at some level, but really.  What does the average man have to face in his daily activities?  Spilling coffee into the keyboard or managing the morning commute is about the most dangerous part.  Negotiating office politics or suffering withering scorn over your teams loss last night is pretty much it.  Slack off that day and the chances are it will matter not one whit.  Competition for employee-of-the-month with the associated bag of candy or some other lame HR scheme pretty much round it out.  It is the world of TGIF and whats-in-it-for-me.

To this person the worldview of the other group is almost incomprehensible and in these threads you see the gulf, and it is wide.

To be sure, I am generalizing a little bit.  One of the greatest assets of this organization are those members who do not come from a military, police or fire background but have an deep and abiding desire to serve and have an intrinsic understanding of that other world.  They have found an outlet and an opportunity in this military auxiliary.

I find it amusing that John K  is castigated and lectured in such a fashion on this matter.  Especially as the good Major is the holder of an actual Military Commission and not some raving lunatic wannabe.  Since the flash-point of wisdom is the realization of just how dumb you really are, perhaps some of you could pay some actual attention to whats said before opining.

Careful with that coffee.

Thanks, Aveighter.  That was nice of you.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 08:13:13 PM
Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate. 

How true.  And it starts with the leadership believing that all the awards, certificates, and promotions really do mean something and act accordingly in discussing them and presenting them.   These bits of paper and cloth work as great motivators - both to the person getting them and the people watching the presentation.  I always hope there is someone in the audience who is looking at the awardee and thinking, "Gee, if that dumb SOB can get it, there is no reason I can't".   I'll take motivation anywhere I can get it...  ;)

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 31, 2007, 03:08:24 PM
None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

While others have posted, let me explain because I think we have a primary disconnect.

My concern was specifically the phrase in the commission claiming others owed that guy obedience due to his grade.  The rest is just fine, but that phrase would cause problems.

In CAP, no obedience is ever required due to a person's GRADE.

Obedience IS, however, often required due to a person's POSITION.  Like all the examples you mention above.  And CAP rules require that - you can be 2B'd for disobeying someone appointed to a position over you (as well you should be).

The problem is in the concept of a "commission."  This would grant authority due to GRADE alone.  And right now, CAP just doesn't work that way.


The 1st Lt PIC has authority over the Lt Col observer, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt IC has authority over the Lt Col GTL, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt senior staff officer has authority over the Lt Col junior staff member, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt Squadron Commander has authority over the Lt Col squadron member, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"


And that's the problem.  Given CAPs grade inversion (and basically, CAP's complete disregard for grade when it comes to assignments or authority, it just doesn't make much sense to grant authority based on grade.  You'd have to really restructure CAP to make it work.

Incidentally, I'm FOR restructuring CAP to make it work.  But just tacking on a "commission" to today's system would just cause confusion.

Hope that explains the point better.

Authority based on position - good.
Authority based on grade - not good, without fundamental changes in CAP's structure.


Now if you remove the stuff about granting authority and just say "wouldn't it be nice if we made a bigger deal when someone gets promoted" I'd say heck yes.  We always make an incredible big deal about officer promotions in my squadron, including formal ceremonies and a "wetting down" of the new grade at the local bar afterwards.  Adding a certificate would be just fine.

"... as is due an officer of this grade AND position."

Redundant and superfluous?  Yes.  Problematic?  No.

Sort of like:

"Null and void."

"Cease and desist."

"Will and wishes"

"Hopes and dreams"

and...

"Redundant and superfluous."   

"Vanguard" and "Customer Service"

I wouldn't mind an extra piece of paper to put on my "I love me" wall, but, along with what everyone else is saying, there's a big inversion between grade and position. I'm a Capt, but a Group level DO (which I think works well), but I work with UNIT DOs and DOV's that are Lt Cols. One doesn't complement the other too well with the current system, and unless it changes, we're stuck.

Got a question to throw into the mix. We have folks that outrank people, position wise, that think there should be positional grade. That the squadron CC, for example, should be the highest ranking in the unit, period.

My question: How many majors or lieutenant colonels are out there that have a position subordinate to a lower ranking person? (Such as a group CC that's a captain, but a squadron CC that's a major or lieutenant colonel). And how many of those majors, lieutenant colonels , or even captains have problems taking directives from these folks that are lower ranking, but higher positions?

If a major in a unit doesn't have a problem taking directions from a captain squadron commander, then is there really a problem? Unless a majority of field grade officers have problems with it, then nothing really needs to be fixed.

If I'm a captain, and have a major in the unit that follows my directions because I'm the CC, then there really aren't any issues. Has anyone seen a number of cases where it's really an actual problem? Or are we trying to justify a solution when there is really no actual problem?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 01, 2007, 04:43:35 PM
"... as is due an officer of this grade AND position."

Redundant and superfluous?  Yes.  Problematic?  No.

As ddelaney103 said

Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 31, 2007, 10:58:29 AM
I suppose if you want a lot of pretty, empty phrases - sure, knock yourself out.

I suppose you could add, "and exercise such superhuman powers granted as a result of this commission, in accordance with the laws of physics."

But more seriously..

My concern is that it's one further step down the wannabee trail.  To the uninformed and ill trained (and we've got a lot of them) it may give the impression that these butter bars actually carry some weight.  Which they don't.  We already have folks trolling for salutes on military bases - I don't want to embolden them by making them think they might have actual power.

YMMV.  But I'd expect this simple "feel good" phrase to result in inflated heads and some embarassment down the road.  If we take that phrase out, we eliminate the potential issue (and save a few milli-cents of printer ink per certificate)  :-)

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 01, 2007, 06:15:22 PM
Got a question to throw into the mix. We have folks that outrank people, position wise, that think there should be positional grade. That the squadron CC, for example, should be the highest ranking in the unit, period.

My question: How many majors or lieutenant colonels are out there that have a position subordinate to a lower ranking person? (Such as a group CC that's a captain, but a squadron CC that's a major or lieutenant colonel). And how many of those majors, lieutenant colonels , or even captains have problems taking directives from these folks that are lower ranking, but higher positions?

If a major in a unit doesn't have a problem taking directions from a captain squadron commander, then is there really a problem? Unless a majority of field grade officers have problems with it, then nothing really needs to be fixed.

If I'm a captain, and have a major in the unit that follows my directions because I'm the CC, then there really aren't any issues. Has anyone seen a number of cases where it's really an actual problem? Or are we trying to justify a solution when there is really no actual problem?

I outrank my squadron CC, and I've discovered that that gives my opinion more weight than it probably should. All eyes should be on him - not the old 0-5 in the corner who's now doing 1st Lt work.

I've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they?  He has to call THEM sir, not the other way round. So yeah, they help him out when they want to.  But it's hardly the enthusiastic support a new commander would prefer to have.

The commander needs all the help he can get - even subtle things like getting salutes.  Everyone in the unit should know that HE is the boss.  He's the Man (or Woman).  It's not like he's got any power over our paychecks.  Any little bit of authority we can give him will help.

There's a REASON the Wing CC gets eagles - it's to make sure he outranks 99% of the guys in his wing.  Why don't we do the same for Group and Squadron CCs?

In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

Are we broke?  No.  Are we less effective/efficient than we could be with some changes?  You betcha!


And if we're gonna wear the rank of the U.S. military, it would sure help us deal with them if we used it the way they do - to recognize authority and responsibility - not just length of service and training.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:19:48 PM
 We already have folks trolling for salutes on military bases - I don't want to embolden them by making them think they might have actual power.

That's something someone needs to be educated on from the get-go. I make a point of informing people of this when I give "mini-classes" (which are usually only one or two people) on C&C to new personnel. Not educating people as such is not a justification for revamping a system that's been working satisfactorily for many years.

I don't think this is really an issue for our higher ranking personnel, they know better. And their advanced rank indicates as such.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PM
I outrank my squadron CC, and I've discovered that that gives my opinion more weight than it probably should.

First time I've ever seen someone complaining about their rank and experience being a bad thing. You'd rather be a 2LT, and have him ignore you?

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PMAll eyes should be on him - not the old 0-5 in the corner who's now doing 1st Lt work.

Shouldn't be a problem if they know that in the first place. One unit I was in had a 25 year old captain squadron CC. When I first talked to him, he asked me if I would have a problem with taking orders from someone his age. I told him no, and I don't understand how it could be an issue. Should be the same way with our positions in our units.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PMI've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they? 

Because he's the commander? Creating positional grade will simply bring up cases of "I've been around longer than you!" instead of "I outrank you!". Either way it's human nature to do such things. You will not remove that, regardless of how you revamp the system. People will simply rationalize their own superiority in other ways.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PM
In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

This has numerous downsides to it as well. The guy/gal in northern California, or Interior Alaska, or on the outskirts of Texas, or anyone else that is far removed from the wing never gets to promote. And you would justify it with "Well, if you can't make the commitment you don't deserve to advance." Why should the guy 20 minutes from the wing get an opportunity to promote over a hard charger that's six hours from the wing with no practical way to serve at that level? Still not fair, and it's an issue you would have to deal with.

Person may not get "hired" at the wing level due to GOB network, or there just might not be positions available, and then it's back to the same issue of how they can get to advance in an equally inequitable system.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PMAre we broke?  No.  Are we less effective/efficient than we could be with some changes?  You betcha!

No, human nature is broke. Revamping the officer rank system won't fix it. And I don't see how positional grade is going to make the system any more efficient. Folks keep saying rank is only an insignia that doesn't mean anything. If it doesn't mean anything, then it's really not in the way. It shows experience, if we would treat it that way, many wouldn't be so hung up on it.

You may think I'm being stubborn on this, but I will consider any practical system that deals with the downsides in a fair and equitable manner. Show me something that is guaranteed to work, and I'll support it. So far I haven't seen anything that is fair to everyone. In order for it to be a legitmately practical system, it must be.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 01, 2007, 06:59:26 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PM
In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

This has numerous downsides to it as well. The guy/gal in northern California, or Interior Alaska, or on the outskirts of Texas, or anyone else that is far removed from the wing never gets to promote. And you would justify it with "Well, if you can't make the commitment you don't deserve to advance." Why should the guy 20 minutes from the wing get an opportunity to promote over a hard charger that's six hours from the wing with no practical way to serve at that level? Still not fair, and it's an issue you would have to deal with.

Person may not get "hired" at the wing level due to GOB network, or there just might not be positions available, and then it's back to the same issue of how they can get to advance in an equally inequitable system.

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

It took me a while to adjust from my Army thinking to CAP's way of doing things.  In CAP all positions below Wing commander are grade immaterial.  In our group, we have a former Wing commander (Col.) in a squadron commanded by a senior captain.  I was IG as a major working for a captain as Group CC.  (He has since been promoted, but in about two years I will be a Lt Col deputy commander reporting to a major CC.)  I see no problem with a commander calling his officers "Sir," regardless of rank.  I worked for a general one time who called all of his officers "Sir."  

A CAP "Commission" document is innocuous and carries no more meaning than we are willing to give it.  I see it as a nice addition to a ceremony, and something that others can see as testimony to a member's voluntary service to the United States.

If this leads to someone "Trolling for salutes," we can deal with that as we have dealt with it before, using the "TCB" method.

TCB:

Train,

Counsel,

BOOT!

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 01, 2007, 06:59:26 PM
When I first talked to him, he asked me if I would have a problem with taking orders from someone his age. I told him no, and I don't understand how it could be an issue.

I don't understand how that can be an issue either.  All of my military family members became officers in their early 20's and were giving orders to people all the way up to forced retirement age.  It's certainly not a new concept and not even limited to CAP or the military.  I have people older than myself reporting to me.  It SHOULDN'T be an issue and most of the time, I don't think it is.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 06:29:02 PM
I've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they?  He has to call THEM sir, not the other way round.

Aren't we over thinking things?  I outrank mine and call him sir anyway, and can't figure out why people would think his position is meaningless because his rank just happens to be lower than theirs.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 01, 2007, 07:34:32 PM

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

I understand the sentiment, but there is one major flaw to that answer.  No matter how many miltary trappings we use, we are not the military, we are unpaid civilians.  Military personnel get paid to deal with the whims of their respective service.  CAP members are all unpaid volunteers who have other jobs, other lives outside of CAP.

No the rank is not guaranteed, and a lot of members don't get the higher grades, mainly because they don't pursue the professional development.

They are not guaranteed the grade, but everyone is given the opportunity, should they choose to pursue it.

Quote from: davedove on November 01, 2007, 08:10:39 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 01, 2007, 07:34:32 PM

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

I understand the sentiment, but there is one major flaw to that answer.  No matter how many miltary trappings we use, we are not the military, we are unpaid civilians.  Military personnel get paid to deal with the whims of their respective service.  CAP members are all unpaid volunteers who have other jobs, other lives outside of CAP.

No the rank is not guaranteed, and a lot of members don't get the higher grades, mainly because they don't pursue the professional development.

They are not guaranteed the grade, but everyone is given the opportunity, should they choose to pursue it.

And that is one of the major jack up of the system.  I have no problems with members getting ribbons for their progress through the PD system, but why do we have to pervert the military's system of grade to provide further merit badge status for a member?

The military uses grade to show who is in charge or is capable of taking charge in the event of a crisis.  We use it as a merit badge. Why?

I keep seeing the same two faced message of 1) grade don't mean nothin' and 2) I have a right to promote.  If it doesn't mean anything, why is it so important to be able to promote?

Why?

I believe that the argument "everyone deserves to get promoted" is how we got to the system we have today, with all of its warts.

Imagine if the real military worked that way - every 2d Lt  regardless of job, talent or ambition deserves to be an Lt Col by taking some classes and hanging around.

It sure would make every officer happier, and that's what it's all about, right?



Seriously, we ARE different than the military.  But that's an argument to not use their grade structure at all.

But if we want to be LIKE the military, and gain their understanding and respect, it makes sense to stick as closely to their model as we can.  Using rank as a sign of education is not exactly the USAF way.  Not by a long stretch.  Military rank denotes responsibility and authority.

At some level we know this, and that's why we reserve the grades 0-6 and above to guys serving in critical positions.

Otherwise, don't I deserve to be CAP two star general just by taking courses and hanging around?


I understand the concept of the guys who live far from Wing.  But truthfully, if we want to be like the real military, or more specifically, like the real part time military (NG and Reserve) we have to accept that in order to promote you need a job at that level.  And if that involves a lengthy commute, so be it.  And if some guys choose not to promote because the commute is too far, so bit it.

The grade could either be temporary (which solves grade inversion) or only made permanent after successful completion of a full tour in an appropriate job (which would decrease grade inversion compared to today).

Or we can just stick with the box top system we have now.  Fine by me - I've got all the boxtops.

But what's right for me may not be the best thing for the organization.

I believe in giving every possible tool to the guy who's stepped up to the plate and volunteered to do the hard job.  I believe in motivating experienced guys to keep doing the hard jobs.  Grade, used correctly, helps in both of these areas.

While human nature may always value experience over grade, don't negate the conditioning value of having to call your boss sir and salute him, regardless of your experience.  This is one of the ways the military uses to reinforce the Lt's authority over the mid grade NCO.  When you're the new guy, every little bit helps.

Plus, since most people love to be on the receiving end , rather than the giving end of the salutes, it might motivate more folks to get out of their comfort zone and volunteer to do the hard work that needs doing.

Again, I believe that both of these effects are why CAP so jealously guards eagles and stars - to give the top guys seniority over the rest of us, and to motivate more good candidates to strive for those jobs.  One would think we could get a similar effect below the Wing CC level by jealously guarding other officer grades as well.

Hmmm seems to me that if you don't think that rank should matter, go join an organization that doesn't use a military model.  And oh, by the way, nice example for the cadets.  These are the lessons that they carry with them.

But if you think it should matter, let's figure out a way to maximize the value it brings to an organization, not just treat the rank worn like so many baubles to be handed out.

Its not just a question of recruiting and retention, its a question of QUALITY recruiting and retention.  You make it matter, you retain better people.  You up the quality, you get better missions.  Seems like a pretty simple formula to me.

Is everyone gonna get everything they want?  Not if we are doing things right.  The real question here, and on the related NCO thread is this:

Should CAP do things better to accomplish our mission to the nation?

If the answer is yes (which I believe it is) then how can we effect that change that will maximize the value of the return on investment?  If we cook up some sacred cows in the progress, so be it.  But I for one believe that as an Auxiliary of our nation's military, we need to embrace our military culture.  Not cast aside the value of that culture because it seems difficult, or because "we're civilians and it doesn't really matter."

Now, I will admit that I don't know what the magic formula is, but I know when we get closer and I know when we move further away.  Doing away with rank is the wrong direction.  Making rank meaningful is the RIGHT direction.

So how do we do it?  Start with the military as our baseline.  Figure out what we CAN do to follow it's example.  Deviate when we HAVE to, and for good reason.  Re-evaluate those decisions over time, and correct as needed.

Our priority of emulation should be as follows:

1.  USAF
2.  Other DoD Branches
3.  Civilian Agencies with similar missions
4.  Friendly Foreign Militaries.
5.  Other high performing organizations.

That is NOT to say that original ideas are bad either.  Just that at the end of the day, we have a duty, not only to the nation, and ourselves, but for those who come after.  We need to do things the best way we can.  That will be our legacy.

And just for the record, I agree with Kach:  You may not be legally COMPELLED to followed the orders of those appointed over you, but you sure as heck should be culturally compelled to do so.  And if you find that onerous, you need to find something else to do.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 01, 2007, 09:04:23 PM
  You may not be legally COMPELLED to followed the orders of those appointed over you, but you sure as heck should be culturally compelled to do so.  And if you find that onerous, you need to find something else to do.

When I find things in the squadron that onerous, I normally do find something else to do.  They tend to realize I am pissed about something when I cut the days I work in the squadron each week in half and don't volunteer to help run mission base on the next SAREX.  Yes, it might be their game - but it IS my ball and I can go home any time I want.   

I am a VOLUNTEER - and will be treated with the respect a volunteer in a volunteer organization deserves.   If people who feel the need to COMPEL volunteers to do things instead of using their leadership ability to positively motivate the volunteers find that onerous, then they need to find an organization that doesn't use VOLUNTEERS. 

Just FYI - granted we have a VOLUNTEER force in the RM, however, once you sign the papers and take the oath, you CEASE  to be a VOLUNTEER for the term of that contract - and maybe longer depending on the needs of the service.

All organizations have two types of leadership - formal and informal.  In the RM, the formal leadership is always the chain of command - and the people in it are always hand-picked by their chain of command.  The informal leadership may be the almost senior NCO, that old passed over Lt Col in the corner, or a super sharp Capt - always decided on by informal and unspoken group consensus.  The best organizations are the ones where the formal and informal leadership are the same people.  Good formal leaders try hard to become the informal leader by winning the respect of their people.

CAP is very different from the RM.   I never saw a RM unit where a former commander was still in it (not counting the few who were stashed away in a vacant office awaiting orders, getting ready to retire, just got fired, or were facing charges).   Most CAP squadrons have numerous former CAP squadron commanders as active members - and possibly a few wing commanders as well.  That automatically creates a very large body of informal leaders whose opinions a smart formal leader is going to pay very close attention to – because his unit is going to be paying attention to them as well.    Unless CAP is going to cull the former commanders out of the units like the RM does, it doesn't matter what rank the current commander has or the former commanders currently wear.   

Quote from: Short Field on November 02, 2007, 04:34:16 AM
CAP is very different from the RM.   I never saw a RM unit where a former commander was still in it (not counting the few who were stashed away in a vacant office awaiting orders, getting ready to retire, just got fired, or were facing charges).   Most CAP squadrons have numerous former CAP squadron commanders as active members - and possibly a few wing commanders as well.  That automatically creates a very large body of informal leaders whose opinions a smart formal leader is going to pay very close attention to – because his unit is going to be paying attention to them as well.    Unless CAP is going to cull the former commanders out of the units like the RM does, it doesn't matter what rank the current commander has or the former commanders currently wear.   

You're absolutley right that having former bigwigs hanging around affects the interpersonal/decision making dynamic.  They may work for you now, but you both know that you used to work for them.  This is not something CAP can completely correct.

But.

I think the concept of position based grade does help make this a bit better.

First, it makes the old guy salute the new guy and call him "sir".  Much like the formal change of command ceremony, this reinforces to everyone in the unit who's in charge.  And every time the old guy salutes the new guy, it reinforces to HIM that he's no longer in charge, and that he owes his full obediance to the new commander, even when he disagrees.

Second, if the old guy liked his rank, he might be more interested in moving up to Group or Wing if that was the only way to keep wearing it.  This would have some the the "culling" effect you you mention above.  We need more of our talent working hard at the higher levels if we ever want a better CAP. 

The old guy should call the new guy "sir" because he's the commander, and the new guy should call the old guy "sir" because he out ranks him.  The example shoudl be set by both.

"Sir" is not a 4-letter word.

Well, under today's rules the commander calls the old guy "sir", and the old guy can call the  commander "Bob".

It might be nice if he used a more polite term of address, but that ain't what  the CAPP requires. 

"Sir" is certainly not a four letter word, but in the military it's a sign of deference.  As a lieutenant, a wise sergeant broke me of the habit of referring to subordinates as "sir."  I was trying to be polite and respectful, but it became clear that the word has a very particular meaning in the military - it means "you can tell me what to do."

It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 02:22:44 PM
It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

Deference to a subordinate is not the same thing as being polite or courteous.  I am both to my subordinates who have a higher grade, but I don't leave any room for doubt as to who is in charge.

The RealMilitary® seems to be able to deal with this situation, as it is not unheard of, especially in reserve and Guard units, I think we can.

The authority imbued in RealMilitary® grade assumes a standard of training, execution, performance, and responsibility you simply will never achieve in a volunteer environment where a large percentage of the members, including commanders and leaders, have t-shirt that says "you're lucky I showed up at all..".

The reality is, in a lot of cases, that is a true statement.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 02, 2007, 03:00:36 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 02:22:44 PM
It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

Deference to a subordinate is not the same thing as being polite or courteous.  I am both to my subordinates who have a higher grade, but I don't leave any room for doubt as to who is in charge.

The RealMilitary® seems to be able to deal with this situation, as it is not unheard of, especially in reserve and Guard units, I think we can.

The authority imbued in RealMilitary® grade assumes a standard of training, execution, performance, and responsibility you simply will never achieve in a volunteer environment where a large percentage of the members, including commanders and leaders, have t-shirt that says "you're lucky I showed up at all..".

The reality is, in a lot of cases, that is a true statement.

Thank you for cluing me in on how the Real Military works.

But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?  In other words why would we say "I'm sorry, you're too screwed up to wear fake railroad tracks, but we're willing to trust you to command a unit." ??

This, of course, is insanity.  If the guy's that bad, the correct answer is to get someone better, or shut down the unit.  (Note, I know CAP doesn't do this right now - but that's another problem we need to fix)

But if you are willing to trust the guy with the responsibility and authority of a captain's job, why wouldn't you give him the symbol of the office?

If folks want rank to be real - this is a critical part.  The guy with the rank is in charge.  If you're not the guy in charge - you don't need the rank.

By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?

Because he or she is the onlyh person willing to do the job, and in the abcense of that person stepping up, the unit folds.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.

Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 02, 2007, 05:04:23 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?

Because he or she is the onlyh person willing to do the job, and in the abcense of that person stepping up, the unit folds.

I believe I specifically addressed that as a CAP problem in the same post - if we want a professional organzation, we should not allow incompetents to command.  Better to have no unit than an embarassing unit.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.

Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?
[/quote]

I'm still waiting for a specific unit and name so I can check this out. War stories don't count.

I believe the situation your state director referred to concerned a specific short duration temporary thing, as in "Okay everyone, Captain X is flying lead today."  That happens.  And that's alot like CAP in ES - where you choose temporary leaders based on things other than grade.

But that's not the same as "Hey Colonel, Captain X is your commander.  He'll give you orders and write your evaluation report."

I'm not saying it doesn't happen somewhere - but honestly I've never, ever seen it.  Not in 21 years of doing this stuff full time.  So I'm interested in verifying it's existence myself.  My guess is that if it does occur, either (1) it's such a wacky situation that it's not something CAP should be emulating or (2) it occurs so verrrry infrequently as to be an aberration, and is not something CAP should be emulating.

But I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Standing by.....

Well, I've now read all 9 pages of this thread, and in my own pea brain, I don't see a workable solution between grade and position.  I would submit, that the importance of grade should be maintained in the cadet ranks and between senior member and cadet.  The senior member side of things, when no cadets are hanging around, the model that might best work is the model of professional collegiality.  We recognize one another as volunteers with gifts, talents and training for the good of the "cause."  I don't see how the RealMilitayr grade structure can work among senior members.

Would the matter of a CAP Commission - such as might be signed by the Air Force, be acceptable to everyone if the commission were worded as such to name us simply as CAP Officers, and not necessarily a CAP 2nd lt, Capt, lt Col
Or if it did, to merely remove the phrase "obey the orders of superior officers" ...

just thinking.

To me, something like this, from the Air Force would mean a heck of alot, and I wouldnt confuse it to mean I have power or authority, that I shouldnt have.

.........................

To answer another bit, Dragoon, back when the Navy Reserve was called up for Gulf War One, I know for a fact that some  Reservists were setup in "assistant" posistions - such as JOOD- under some lower ranking AD personnel.

EMT, that would be perfectly reasonable, but the folks pushing the commission issue seem to actually be interested in transforming the nature of CAP entirely, so I doubt it would satisfy them. 

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 02, 2007, 06:46:57 PM
To answer another bit, Dragoon, back when the Navy Reserve was called up for Gulf War One, I know for a fact that some  Reservists were setup in "assistant" posistions - such as JOOD- under some lower ranking AD personnel.

I'd call that a crisis situation, not normal ops.  The question remains, is anyone doing it right now.  Someone's gotta be -it's a pretty big DoD out there.  But I've yet to find such a setup.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 02, 2007, 06:46:57 PM
Would the matter of a CAP Commission - such as might be signed by the Air Force, be acceptable to everyone if the commission were worded as such to name us simply as CAP Officers, and not necessarily a CAP 2nd lt, Capt, lt Col
Or if it did, to merely remove the phrase "obey the orders of superior officers" ...

just thinking.

To me, something like this, from the Air Force would mean a heck of alot, and I wouldnt confuse it to mean I have power or authority, that I shouldnt have.

I think this is a fine idea.   Of course, we'd have to get by the "we're only USAF Aux part of the time" problem.  Proper wording might get us there.

Quote from: DogCollar on November 02, 2007, 06:11:57 PM
Well, I've now read all 9 pages of this thread, and in my own pea brain, I don't see a workable solution between grade and position.  I would submit, that the importance of grade should be maintained in the cadet ranks and between senior member and cadet.  The senior member side of things, when no cadets are hanging around, the model that might best work is the model of professional collegiality.  We recognize one another as volunteers with gifts, talents and training for the good of the "cause."  I don't see how the RealMilitayr grade structure can work among senior members.

There seem to be at least semi-workable alternatives to the way we do things today.  All have good and bad points.

1.  Use USAF grade and tie it to position.  Since we can't order folks to serve at a given level, officer grade would be rather temporary.  But at least the guys in charge will have the highest rank - just like in USAF.  Upsets people who want grade without work, feel they deserve to be promoted to the top regardless ability to serve in high level jobs (for reasons like long commutes), or feel that they should be able to hang looking important and resting on past laurels without working hard any more.

2.  Award permanent grade only AFTER completing a tour in a job at the appropriate level.  This is the current system for Wing CC's and above.  This wouldn't ensure that the guy in charge has the most grade.  But it would at least insure some appropriate level of performance out of those with grade, which would raise the quality of our officers.  Same complaints as #1, except it allows for resting on past laurels.

3.  Use a non-USAF grade system which specifially denotes experience and training, but doesn't involve any deference (saluting, "sir", etc).  Keeps things collegial, it's easy to train, and it avoids comparisions with USAF officers.  Keeps incentive to do PD.   Makes it easy to interact with the military (no grade confusion).   Upsets those who are hung up on being "real officers."

4.  Eliminate USAF grade.  Keep the uniforms, but wear them as USAF volunteer civilians.  Makes it easy to interact with the military (no grade confusion).  Decreases incentive to do PD.  Use position titles instead of grade  REALLY upsets those who are hung up on being real officers. 

And you can combine several alternatives.  I like a hybrid of #1 and #3 - flight officers for most, and temporary commissioned grade (based on position AND PD level) for current leaders.  I think #2 is the easiest sell.

We'll never do it the RM way - we are unpaid part timers who never really retire and move up and down the heirarchy throughout our "careers."  The RM doesn't deal these issues.  But we could to a better job of using rank in fashion that reflects well on our parent service AND helps make a better functioning CAP.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 05:16:41 PM
I'm still waiting for a specific unit and name so I can check this out. War stories don't count.

According to a friend, he can top out as an O-4, maybe O-5 and stick around forever just flying and being commanded by an O-3.  I'm not mentioning the unit on a public board, but according to him, it DOES happen.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 02, 2007, 05:16:41 PM
I believe the situation your state director referred to concerned a specific short duration temporary thing, as in "Okay everyone, Captain X is flying lead today."  That happens.  And that's alot like CAP in ES - where you choose temporary leaders based on things other than grade.

I asked the question specifically in reference to the exact situation of permanently assigned personnel in "real" unit situations.  We have discussed this more than once and his response has always been the same.

I do not have a specific unit number for you to call and confirm, sorry.

Edited for tone.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 02, 2007, 05:04:23 PM
[I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.
Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?

As a 1st Lt, I had a Capt assigned to me for almost a year.  I didn't write or sign his fitness report, but I was the Chief and he was one of several that worked for me.  I was always polite, and he always did what I asked.

Years later, I had numerous reservists assigned to my team - I was the team leader.  I remember chewing out a O-6 one night for seriously screwing up an action request.  I gave him a direct order to NEVER pick up a phone again - and he didn't.   

So it is not just a CAP issue.   By the way, I outrank our squadron commander.  I call him "Sir" in public and salute him first at meetings.  In private, I use his first name - and am quite free with my opinions.

Some years back I served on a group staff as one of four rather senior lt colonels.

The CC was newly minted major (special appointment by virtue of getting the command).

Most of the unit CCs were lieutenants & captains.

We saluted him, and generally addressed him in public as "Major".

He saluted each of us (it really depended on who saw whom first), and called us 'colonel or 'sir', unfailingly, in public.

He was in charge, and if we saw him steering into troubled waters, one or more of us brought it up to him privately.

Sometimes he took the advice, sometimes not.

We all survived!

Quote from: Dragoon on November 01, 2007, 09:02:26 PM
I believe that the argument "everyone deserves to get promoted" is how we got to the system we have today, with all of its warts.

I don't believe such a thing. If everyone did, then there would be no need for PD advancement. And I know many a person stuck at a grade because they won't complete various levels. So, in reference to your statement, not everyone deserves it. There are cases where they're "too busy", or too lazy to get it.

I know of a group commander in one wing who had been a captain for almost twelve years. Why? Because of that one little "NOTE" in 35-5. In twelve years, he hadn't accomlished it. Probably could have submitted a half a dozen wavers for it by that time. You're allowed a year for the course. Surely, four volumes of what is essentially a CDC could be accomplished in that time. Although dishonest, he could have even ordered the course and taken it open book. He didn't care about advancement, only his position. How do you deal with a person like that?

He didn't get a lot of support, I imagine because people had seen him never promote. He just hung around, holding position. At least the current system requires people to better themselves.

I don't think he should have held the group position at all after a couple of years. Your system would place someone that didn't even have equivalent professional advancement in comparison to many people in some of the squadrons he supervised.

I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military comissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade.

Should a comission be adopted, it doesn't need a Presidential signature either. I think the Chief of Staff of the Air Force would be more than sufficient. And it might have the advantage of the AF being more aware of us, and including us more in their operations.

"I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military commissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade."

So, for a commission in CAP, should we require a college education  and a cut off age of 30 years old?

Quote from: Grumpy on November 06, 2007, 06:32:14 PM
"I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military commissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade."

So, for a commission in CAP, should we require a college education  and a cut off age of 30 years old?

You're taking my statement way too far. For the initial it needs to be more than four hours of video and new clothes, which is what our initial training is right now. A revamped CAP officer course for the initial would probably be a good idea. Educate our officers a little more in the military way that we have.

Reaching higher ranks should require more leadership training. I took the AF Airman Leadership School, and I think that much of its contents would be applicable. Not the whole four weeks, that's impractical. A lot of it seemed pretty inline with Region Staff College. Build on something like those.

There are a lot of volunteer organizations out there that probably have far more advancing education than we do. It shouldn't be like that.

Requiring college degrees and a cutoff age don't benefit us.

OK, that's good about the college and age cut off.

How about CAP setting up a program much like WAPS testing?  Take a written and meet a board along with a records review.  That would tighten up the training requirements.

But I have seen the "but I won't be able to promote because I'm too far away" argument here before.

Promotion in the RM is more than just checking blocks until you're promotable - someone has to decide that 1) you're able to handle the added responsibility and 2) there's a place for you.

There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions.  By also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

Quote from: Grumpy on November 06, 2007, 07:50:25 PM
OK, that's good about the college and age cut off.

How about CAP setting up a program much like WAPS testing?  Take a written and meet a board along with a records review.  That would tighten up the training requirements.

Things that make you go "Hmmmm". I'm not sure whether I should think that this is the greatest idea since sliced bread, or the worst thing I've ever heard.

It would prevent those that never bother to work on anything from advancing, and there are also procedures in place for testing people at the unit. So it's not impossible.

The question is whether or not it would be practical. It would only be one test every few years, the problem might be creating a test that most people coiuld reasonably study for and pass without spending every free moment studying. But there are people that have issues taking tests. Maybe require them for captain and up?

Definitely something to think about. It would definitely eliminate an appearance that "everybody will make lieutenant colonel". Either way, we need to definitely improve our officer corps. I'm game to any reasonable program. People should have a right to advance, but they should have to work for it.

Although come to think of it, we are under Air University. I don't see how we couldn't have some of these courses accredited, and transferable to colleges and universities. Although we wouldn't go so far as to offer a degree, there's a certain irony to becoming a CAP officer to help with your schooling.

Still, for any commision, we still need higher standards. What we have doesn't really fill the bill. Can you imagine: "I took a four hour course, and got a comission!" ?

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PM
There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PMBy also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

How about minimum time in CAP before receiving officer rank?

I'd link it to the Red Service ribbon -- 2 years service (and I really don't care what the title is -- SMWOG, A1C, SrA, Officer Candidate) for those without prior military or CAP cadet service before getting 2nd Lt.

Give some time to learn about the organization before expecting new members to accept officer type responsibility.

I'd also link the RSR to command appointment.....2 years active CAP membership before becoming eligible for any commander/deputy/chief of staff type position.

Actually, ZZ, I'd go in the opposite direction.

I think a comprehensive, and fairly intense, officer training program should exist in CAP, and after completion of that program, 2LT rand should be awarded.

The intensity should be about the same level as a cadet encampment, but conducted on weekends.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 10, 2007, 02:38:52 PM
Actually, ZZ, I'd go in the opposite direction.

I think a comprehensive, and fairly intense, officer training program should exist in CAP, and after completion of that program, 2LT rand should be awarded.

The intensity should be about the same level as a cadet encampment, but conducted on weekends.

It did exist up to the early 1950's!  We got bent on the "more and more people" NOW mentality.  A good training program that existed for CAP Cadets transitioning to the Officer side of CAP should be brought back, not for cadets, but for new members.  Serve a year learning about CAP, it's missions, people, do some job rotations then pick a career field you are interested in.  It is appearant we are not recruiting enough members now, so lets turn who we recruit into quality Officers (or NCO's).  Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 10, 2007, 03:45:36 PM
Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 12, 2007, 06:38:24 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 10, 2007, 03:45:36 PM
Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

Let me spend a few days standing at the scanner.....I will post a few.  UNLESS someone has already beaten me to it??

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 12, 2007, 07:18:01 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 12, 2007, 06:38:24 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 10, 2007, 03:45:36 PM
Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

Let me spend a few days standing at the scanner.....I will post a few.  UNLESS someone has already beaten me to it??

Mr Shaw, Please report to the thread, Mr Shaw....

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 06, 2007, 08:32:11 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PM
There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PMBy also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

You know, I've never seen the GOB problem to the extent that some people have seen it.  Most Wing CC's I've worked for were DESPERATE for good folks. Problem was, no one wanted the jobs.  So....they "guilted" their friends into helping them out.  Hence the outward perception of "Good 'ol boy network."

I have seen, however, many cases of two kinds of folks complaining about the "Good 'Ol Boy Network."

1.  Folks, who, frankly, wouldn't be good at the job, but who lack the insight to realize this, and figure reason they didn't get it HAS to be favoritism.

2.  Good Folks who somehow expect CAP leadership to automatically identifiy them as being highly talented individuals worthy of advancment, when in reality they haven't done enough for anyone in the Wing to realize how good they are yet!

The idea of tying grade to both position and PD is a very good one - that way it ain't just about taking a test and doing nothing, but it's also not just about taking a good job with no training.

QuoteMr Shaw, Please report to the thread, Mr Shaw....

Someone rang?

Tags - MIKE

Quote from: Dragoon on November 13, 2007, 09:04:27 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 06, 2007, 08:32:11 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PM
There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 06, 2007, 08:22:37 PMBy also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

You know, I've never seen the GOB problem to the extent that some people have seen it.  Most Wing CC's I've worked for were DESPERATE for good folks. Problem was, no one wanted the jobs.  So....they "guilted" their friends into helping them out.  Hence the outward perception of "Good 'ol boy network."

I have seen, however, many cases of two kinds of folks complaining about the "Good 'Ol Boy Network."

1.  Folks, who, frankly, wouldn't be good at the job, but who lack the insight to realize this, and figure the reason they didn't get the job HAS to be favoritism.

2.  Good Folks who somehow expect CAP leadership to automatically identifiy them as being highly talented individuals worthy of advancment, when in reality they haven't done enough for anyone in the Wing to realize how good they are yet!

The idea of tying grade to both position and PD is a very good one - that way it ain't just about taking a test and doing nothing, but it's also not just about taking a good job with no training.

Im commenting on this again, as I mull over the possibility of the PHS Reserve...

What are the chances that we could get the Air Force to give us a certificate or warrant or commission? - maybe signed by the USAF-CAP /CC or SECAF- 

It would not need to give us power over others, merely serve as the object giving us status as (Auxiliary) officers.


I know we've batted this around for 10 pages... but as written up as I put it above, with the justification above, would anyone really have a problem with this?

Or to ask a sidebar: If CAP-USAF/ NHQ came out tomorrow and announced that we would recieve something like this: What should such an item say/ look like and whose signature would you like to see on the bottom?

I've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

IMO, CAP ranks are on the same footing as officers in fire departments, not the US armed forces. This is no way implies that there aren't competent people in CAP. There are. However, I fail to see how being a CAP officer comes remotely close to meeting the commissioning requirements of the US military.

Commissioning requirements for the armed forces involve educational requirements, some form of basic military training, completion of an OCS/OTS type of program, completion of some form of initial career training, etc. Basically a year or more of training (365+ days).

CAP requires a person be older than 21, complete Level 1 training, and be on the books for 6 months (6 days, if meeting once a month).

PHS officers are part of the USN  have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the (inserted: medical professionals who are directly commissioned into the armed forces.

CAP has no such equivalent.

If CAP were to embark on such a program, I'd be curious to see how willing existing members would be to accept dramatic reductions to their current grades?  I suspect the more likely answer would be to grandfather those already in grade and make the tougher program applicable only to new members.

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

They are??

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

They are??

Well, except for the part about the USN - they wear the Navy uniform but with different badges (NOAA Corps does the same thing).

PHS are under UCMJ (sometimes) but since they're medical people they don't really have command authority over anyone except other medical people.

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
I've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

IMO, CAP ranks are on the same footing as officers in fire departments, not the US armed forces. This is no way implies that there aren't competent people in CAP. There are. However, I fail to see how being a CAP officer comes remotely close to meeting the commissioning requirements of the US military.

Don't kid yourself  - CAP ranks are wayyyy beneath officers in fire departments.  Fire department rank denotes position.  CAP rank just denotes experience.

In a fire department, last time I checked, you don't get to be captain and just drive the truck.  You have to be in charge of something.  But in CAP it's just fine to be a captain and just drive the van....

And this is why the concept of a commission makes no sense - the purpose of commissioning someone is to give them authority and responsibility.  We don't seem to want to do that.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 20, 2007, 08:26:32 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
I've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

IMO, CAP ranks are on the same footing as officers in fire departments, not the US armed forces. This is no way implies that there aren't competent people in CAP. There are. However, I fail to see how being a CAP officer comes remotely close to meeting the commissioning requirements of the US military.

Don't kid yourself  - CAP ranks are wayyyy beneath officers in fire departments.  Fire department rank denotes position.  CAP rank just denotes experience.

In a fire department, last time I checked, you don't get to be captain and just drive the truck.  You have to be in charge of something.  But in CAP it's just fine to be a captain and just drive the van....

And this is why the concept of a commission makes no sense - the purpose of commissioning someone is to give them authority and responsibility.  We don't seem to want to do that.

So lets change that. 

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 07:37:33 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

They are??

Well, except for the part about the USN - they wear the Navy uniform but with different badges (NOAA Corps does the same thing).

PHS are under UCMJ (sometimes) but since they're medical people they don't really have command authority over anyone except other medical people.

ummm ya.......they are a Uniformed Service of the United States, but their commissioning requirements DO NOT mirror anything the military has (except education)  Last time I checked, they are NOT subject to the UCMJ (Military Justice).  Most vary rarely wear a uniform.  I am still wondering why we even have them around today.  Same with the NOAA Commissioned Corps. 


Heck, right now the USPHS is hurting for people, I am sure they will grant waivers for everything, just to get warm bodies. 

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:32:06 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 07:37:33 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

They are??

Well, except for the part about the USN - they wear the Navy uniform but with different badges (NOAA Corps does the same thing).

PHS are under UCMJ (sometimes) but since they're medical people they don't really have command authority over anyone except other medical people.

ummm ya.......they are a Uniformed Service of the United States, but their commissioning requirements DO NOT mirror anything the military has (except education)  Last time I checked, they are NOT subject to the UCMJ (Military Justice).  Most vary rarely wear a uniform.  I am still wondering why we even have them around today.  Same with the NOAA Commissioned Corps. 


Heck, right now the USPHS is hurting for people, I am sure they will grant waivers for everything, just to get warm bodies. 

They're a lot like the military medical corps, which is not like the military.  The MC is one of the few places where you can walk in the office a no prior service civilian and walk out a Colonel.

QuoteI've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

Don't confuse topics on this board with anything that 99% or more of CAP members care one bit about. 

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:32:06 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 07:37:33 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

No, USPHS is not a part of the USN. The USPHS is falls under the Department of Health and Human Services not the Department of Defense....

Quote
They are??


Well, except for the part about the USN - they wear the Navy uniform but with different badges (NOAA Corps does the same thing).

PHS are under UCMJ (sometimes) but since they're medical people they don't really have command authority over anyone except other medical people.

The USPHS is not subject to UCMJ, unless you take a job with a DoD component.

Quote
ummm ya.......they are a Uniformed Service of the United States, but their commissioning requirements DO NOT mirror anything the military has (except education)  Last time I checked, they are NOT subject to the UCMJ (Military Justice).  Most vary rarely wear a uniform.  I am still wondering why we even have them around today.  Same with the NOAA Commissioned Corps. 

You wonder why we're still around? Do you know anything about the USPHS?

Quote
Heck, right now the USPHS is hurting for people, I am sure they will grant waivers for everything, just to get warm bodies. 

Funny you should mention that....My first commission with the USPHS was as follows: receive a packet in the mail, sign and notorize a few papers, send in the packet, receive a letter in the mail saying (paraphrase) congrats LTJG now go and find a job for yourself! Seriously, that was it!

I'm getting a waiver for 18 years of active duty......I would think I'm more than just a warm body.... ;D

Sorry folks. Head-space/timing group problem on my post from yesterday (PHS part of the USN). What I meant was that PHS had a naval style uniforms and officer program similar to that used by health care professionals who receive direct commissions into the armed forces. Brain was way ahead of my fingers.

I looked at PHS pretty seriously about 10 years. They were offering physician assistants direct commissions along with a very generous student loan repayment plan.

Can't speak for now but back then it was licensed health care professionals. Again, similar to direct commissioning of doctors/nurses -- at least how they did it 10-15 years ago. The only folks walking in the door as civilians and out as Colonels would likely be board certified surgeons and those of similar ilk. Same applies to the armed forces.

Unless there have been dramatic changes, MDs were/are given direct commissions as Captains and nurses were 1st LTs, depending on additional qualifiers. In any event, these folks received their positions based upon professional medical qualifications.

Back to CAP: officer grades appear largely devoid of meaningful qualification (in the sense that it's lacking compared to formal training received by military officers, etc) and, to me anyway, has no discernable rhyme or reason behind it. Examples:
CFI -- automatic promotion to Captain
Career military NCO -- SMWOG (assuming doesn't want CAP NCO status) and then 6 months for 2LT.

Depending on your mindset, which of the above has the more meaningful/relevant background? No right or wrong answer. Just depends on your perspective.

CAPs grade structure is fine so long as people stop somehow equating it to the armed forces.

But being an EMT or medic and not a : Dr, PA, RN will they commission you? or even accept you?

Here's the site:  http://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/questions.aspx#whatis


Here's what they list for commissioned positions:
Physician
Nurse
Pharmacist
Dentist
Dietitian
Engineer
Environmental health officer
Health services officer
Scientist
Therapist
Veterinarian

Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2007, 11:04:27 PM

QuoteI've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

Don't confuse topics on this board with anything that 99% or more of CAP members care one bit about. 

Hoping you're right.

Quote from: riffraff on November 21, 2007, 02:03:39 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2007, 11:04:27 PM

QuoteI've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

Don't confuse topics on this board with anything that 99% or more of CAP members care one bit about. 

Hoping you're right.

The important stuff we discuss at our units. This is where we can discuss the stuff that would make the eyes of our local members glaze over. ;D

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:26:48 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on November 20, 2007, 08:26:32 PM

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 01:25:04 PM
I've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

IMO, CAP ranks are on the same footing as officers in fire departments, not the US armed forces. This is no way implies that there aren't competent people in CAP. There are. However, I fail to see how being a CAP officer comes remotely close to meeting the commissioning requirements of the US military.

Don't kid yourself  - CAP ranks are wayyyy beneath officers in fire departments.  Fire department rank denotes position.  CAP rank just denotes experience.

In a fire department, last time I checked, you don't get to be captain and just drive the truck.  You have to be in charge of something.  But in CAP it's just fine to be a captain and just drive the van....

And this is why the concept of a commission makes no sense - the purpose of commissioning someone is to give them authority and responsibility.  We don't seem to want to do that.

So lets change that. 

Sounds easy - but is actually verrry difficult.

1.  CAP's culture is that everyone deserves to be promoted.  If you in any way link grade to authority, you'll upset all the people who want to be Lt Cols, but who either don't have the talent or inclination to performa that level, or aren't willing to endure the long commute to go where a Lt Col job is.

2.  CAP doesn't do "up or out."  We do "up or down."  Today's Vice Wing Commander is tomorrow's Squadron ES Officer.  Unless we are willing to go with temporary grade that comes and goes with position , it's gonna be hard to make it work.

Quote from: riffraff on November 20, 2007, 11:40:55 PM

CAPs grade structure is fine so long as people stop somehow equating it to the armed forces.

Yup,  But as long as we wear USAF grade on USAF uniforms, it's gonna be durn near impossible to get people to NOT equate it to the armed forces.  After all, what other logical reason would we have for doing it?

Quote from: Dragoon on November 21, 2007, 02:22:11 PMYup,  But as long as we wear USAF grade on USAF uniforms, it's gonna be durn near impossible to get people to NOT equate it to the armed forces.  After all, what other logical reason would we have for doing it?

And your statement nicely puts the issue into focus. Why so much interest in 'legitimizing' CAP rank (i.e. commissions)? I would venture ego/vanity is the prime motivator here. Ties in with the uniform thread, too. Make the CAP uniform indistinguishable from USAF for what reason? Again, I suspect ego and vanity are high on the reason list.

Quote from: riffraff on November 22, 2007, 12:24:20 AM
I would venture ego/vanity is the prime motivator here.

Truth Grenade!!!!!  Flames to follow...

Quote from: Short Field on November 22, 2007, 03:11:28 AM

Quote from: riffraff on November 22, 2007, 12:24:20 AM
I would venture ego/vanity is the prime motivator here.

Truth Grenade!!!!!  Flames to follow...

Amen to that!

Quote from: Grumpy on November 22, 2007, 04:08:03 AM

Quote from: Short Field on November 22, 2007, 03:11:28 AM

Quote from: riffraff on November 22, 2007, 12:24:20 AM
I would venture ego/vanity is the prime motivator here.

Truth Grenade!!!!!  Flames to follow...

Amen to that!

I would imagine that the cache that CAP has as an "Auxilliary of the United States Air Force" (or whatever is correct this week)  has a certain value.  People want to feel like they are part of the Air Force, and that is not a bad thing.  In fact that is a huge part of what draws people.  And what differentiates CAP from other organizations.  I'm sure it what draws cadets versus other youth organizations.   Why is that wrong?  There seems to be two camps here, which perceive their positions as mutually exclusive.  I don't think they are.

I think that the problem is just that CAP is weird.  It is not the mililtary, but it isn't exactly civilian either.  So we go back and forth trying to figure out which square hole to put the round peg in.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 22, 2007, 04:17:41 PM

Quote from: Grumpy on November 22, 2007, 04:08:03 AM

Quote from: Short Field on November 22, 2007, 03:11:28 AM

Quote from: riffraff on November 22, 2007, 12:24:20 AM
I would venture ego/vanity is the prime motivator here.

Truth Grenade!!!!!  Flames to follow...

Amen to that!

I would imagine that the cache that CAP has as an "Auxilliary of the United States Air Force" (or whatever is correct this week)  has a certain value.  People want to feel like they are part of the Air Force, and that is not a bad thing.  In fact that is a huge part of what draws people.  And what differentiates CAP from other organizations.  I'm sure it what draws cadets versus other youth organizations.   Why is that wrong?  There seems to be two camps here, which perceive their positions as mutually exclusive.  I don't think they are.

I think that the problem is just that CAP is weird.  It is not the mililtary, but it isn't exactly civilian either.  So we go back and forth trying to figure out which square hole to put the round peg in.

If I can echo that... the AF get's an ~$80mil cost savings for $25mil input. The price they pay for that is asuaging the egos of a bunch of old civilian pilots playing military in AF looking uniforms & being equated w/ the AF, plus they get the cadet program & all it brings to them & the military at large (which is huge on a cost/benefit basis). If CAP did the same job in the same way w/o the military trappings, there wouldn't honestly be enough people here willing to get raped financially & screwed over as volunteers to sustain an organizaiton at all, much less one with a big enough national pressence to do the mission. The AF knew what they were getting into in 1942/3, and 47, 03, and 07, and they've consistently thought it was worth the hassle/price. It'd be pretty hard to lay those facts in front of any taxpayer and get a different answer.


ORIGINAL QUESTION:
Now, the orginal question about national guard OCS, just wanted to clarify since I'm in the TX OCS program right now.

It's a NGB (national) program. ALL states have the same requirements, which are to START: 60hrs, complete basic (or prior svc/WLC), 18-39 (30+ req waiver but never denied - that's just about being able to serve 20yrs commissioned so you don't get screwed on the pension, or at least contract knowing you will get screwed), US citizen, able to get secret clear.

Now in order to commission, you have to have completed 90hrs. And degree completion prior to Captain.

The program is non-competitive for selection. The guard/reserve were short 10,500 company grade officers last year. We have Lts commanding companies in some fields. I got a guy in my class that isn't even commissioned yet that's a support Company XO on state active duty on the border mission & already slotted to take command when he gets back from accelerated in March. Mid-grade Capts as Bn Cdrs... it's crazy. My aviation unit just got back from Iraq. They were short pilots when they left & had to draw from other states, reserve, & active duty just to field a Bn. Now that people are back & getting out, they are really short handed, and that's freaking Apache pilot slots I'm talking about - walk across the field the day you get back from training & get hired flying back & forth to rigs for upwards of 80k/yr. The quality isn't lowered at all, but getting INTO the program is not much of a challenge, and the career opportunities when you commission are really good.

Now the program for anyone that's interested...

The traditional program runs 18mos: fri-sun wknd drills (no excuse ofr missing), and 2x 18day annual training periods in the two summers involved. Runs March to Sep of the following year.

There is also an accelerated option. That's 3-6 drills then 8wks in Kansas or Alabama. 7days/wk, loong days, mostly in the field.

The program is a bit shorter (in terms of duty time, not calender) than the federal OCS program (12wks), but also a bit harder - it's highly field oriented versus fed is more in garrison with laptops. The NG OCS program has a pretty consistent 70% drop rate, versus fed is more like 40%. A lot of that has to do with the serious demands it makes on you while trying to balance an outside life. It's much easier to go away to school & focus on just that. It's based on the infantry officer field, it's very demanding physically, and a high stress enviro (much like basic on a serious amount of steroids).

That's the nutshell. The program is standardized & quality controlled by the feds to fed OCS, so when you grad you get a fed commission in the reserves at the same time as you get a state commission.

I do HIGHLY encourage anyone that qualifies to come do it, but it's not easy. ROTC is MUCH MUCH MUCH eaiser & less time consuming with better pay while you're in school, but then you have to be under 27 for ROTC & I missed that one a while back.

We have bounced around this topic a lot.  Lets get back to what we were originally debating.

And... exactly what was that?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 20, 2007, 08:09:41 AM
Im commenting on this again, as I mull over the possibility of the PHS Reserve...

What are the chances that we could get the Air Force to give us a certificate or warrant or commission? - maybe signed by the USAF-CAP /CC or SECAF- 

It would not need to give us power over others, merely serve as the object giving us status as (Auxiliary) officers.


I know we've batted this around for 10 pages... but as written up as I put it above, with the justification above, would anyone really have a problem with this?

Or to ask a sidebar: If CAP-USAF/ NHQ came out tomorrow and announced that we would recieve something like this: What should such an item say/ look like and whose signature would you like to see on the bottom?

The wording of a commission directs "All officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position."  Plus, if the SecAF grants CAP officers warrants, they would count against the end strength of the AF officers.

Our appointing authority is the National Commander.  He could issue such a document.

What do you mean a warrant from SACAF would count against the end of AF Officers?

As for something signed by NHQ/CC what makes that official?

Commissioned and warrant officers are counted by Congress and the end strength of a service in terms of officers is controlled by Congress.  If CAP officers are granted warrants by SECAF, then they would count against the end strength numbers of the AF.

The Natl CC is as official as we can get.  It is under his authority that officers in CAP are appointed.

Commissioned officers are appointed by the President, 

Warrant officers are appointed by the service secretary.

We are appointed by the National Commander, who has, as a practical matter, delegated the authority to make appointments to subordinate commanders, according to the grade to which appointed.

I would imagine Congress could pass legislation authorizing SECAF to appoint/commission officers, warrant officers, or non-commissioned officers in the
USAF Auxiliary "supernumerary" to the end strength of the regular/reserve AF, especially since there would be no compensation involved.

Why they would want to get bogged down in complex legislation for what amounted to the 'military' equivalent of vanity license plates is another issue entirely!

Of course, Congress could create a separate officers' list... an Auxiliary List that, just like I, presently on the "Retired List," does not count against the officer strength of a service.

Good luck.

Why would Congress bother creating an "Auxiliary officers list"?

What's the benefit?

For that matter, what's the point?!?

A certificate of appointment (or promotion) from NHQ might be nice....something else to clutter up the wall!

Actually, a similar certificate for command appointments would be a 'nice to have', also.

"A certificate of appointment (or promotion) from NHQ might be nice....something else to clutter up the wall!"

Ah yes, the ol' "I love me wall".  Got one myself.

Quote from: Grumpy on November 25, 2007, 06:31:37 PMAh yes, the ol' "I love me wall".  Got one myself.

No self-respecting donut-eatin' s'member is without one!  ;D

Except I haven't found a place to go set up one in my house, yet!

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 07:14:09 PM
Except I haven't found a place to go set up one in my house, yet!

You can always set it up at work!  Then move the coffee pot and watercooler in front of it, so all your coworkers have to read and see "how AWESOME" you are everyday. 

Subliminally, it could also get you that big promotion.  Your Boss notices how awesome you are, equates that to how much you deserve more money and greater responsibility!

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 25, 2007, 07:47:45 PM

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 07:14:09 PM
Except I haven't found a place to go set up one in my house, yet!

You can always set it up at work!  Then move the coffee pot and watercooler in front of it, so all your coworkers have to read and see "how AWESOME" you are everyday. 

Subliminally, it could also get you that big promotion.  Your Boss notices how awesome you are, equates that to how much you deserve more money and greater responsibility!

Fat chance... I don't even rate an office.  My boss, on the other hand, does have an 'I can engineer almost anywhere' wall - he's a licensed P.E. in several states.

This whole thread consists of confusion between those who equate a piece of paper (a Commission) with a whole slew of other changes that would have to take place to make the piece of paper mean what they would like it to mean. 

River, you are right.

ZZ, I was agreeing with you.  What was proposed, having the SECAF issue certificates to CAP members, would require Congressional action.

A commission or a warrant is simply a document saying that the bearer has the trust of the president or service secretary, and is appointed  to a military grade.  The authority to give orders and to punish those who disobey is found in law, not in any intrinsic power of a document.

We are appointed to CAP grade by authority of the National Commander.  The authority to give orders and to punish those who disobey is found in our regulations.  For that reason, a certificate from the Natl CC is appropriate, and very cool for those of us blessed with a den to display it in. 

Without such a document, insubordinate members can still be 2B'ed.  Life goes on. 

So quick question all.  Do you consider yourselves members of a volunteer organization that happens to wear military rank?  Or are you volunteer officers of an instrument of the US Government?

Until we sort that out, the rest is eyewash.

Look, IMHO CAP's permission to wear rank and the insignia of the uniform of a commissioned US officer should clarify that.   Carry yourself as such.  A piece of paper is not going to change anything.  It's a question of professionalism.  The concept of what an officer is, predates existing jurisprudence.  Granted, you may not legally enjoy all the rights and prerogatives of a "military" officer, but you are in fact officers.  "A person holding trust or authority"

I will truncate the rest of my rant and vacate the soapbox.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 26, 2007, 09:14:25 PM
So quick question all.  Do you consider yourselves members of a volunteer organization that happens to wear military rank?  Or are you volunteer officers of an instrument of the US Government?

Until we sort that out, the rest is eyewash.

Look, IMHO CAP's permission to wear rank and the insignia of the uniform of a commissioned US officer should clarify that.   Carry yourself as such.  A piece of paper is not going to change anything.  It's a question of professionalism.  The concept of what an officer is, predates existing jurisprudence.  Granted, you may not legally enjoy all the rights and prerogatives of a "military" officer, but you are in fact officers.  "A person holding trust or authority"

I will truncate the rest of my rant and vacate the soapbox.

Amen.

Rank is but two bits of tinsel;

A commission is but a piece of paper;

It is a sense of professionalism and spirit that makes us what we are, federally validated or not.

Dan Kaffee in 'A Few Good Men' put it rather succinctly: "You don't have to wear a patch to have honor...'

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 26, 2007, 09:14:25 PM
So quick question all.  Do you consider yourselves members of a volunteer organization that happens to wear military rank?  Or are you volunteer officers of an instrument of the US Government?

Until we sort that out, the rest is eyewash.

Look, IMHO CAP's permission to wear rank and the insignia of the uniform of a commissioned US officer should clarify that.   Carry yourself as such.  A piece of paper is not going to change anything.  It's a question of professionalism.  The concept of what an officer is, predates existing jurisprudence.  Granted, you may not legally enjoy all the rights and prerogatives of a "military" officer, but you are in fact officers.  "A person holding trust or authority"

I will truncate the rest of my rant and vacate the soapbox.

Put me down in the column with the rest of the "Volunteer military officers."  The only difference I see in my duty now and my duty as an Army Reserve officer is that my mailbox no longer has a check waiting for me on the first of the month for my service. 

Vollunteer Officer

^ The same!!

member of a volunteer organization.

Military-style uniforms? Yes.  Peers of military officers in the same respective grades? Not even close.

This in no way implies there isn't professionalism in CAP. There is. However, CAP is no different than other volunteer organizations I've been involved with -- fire, EMS, etc. All had rules, by-laws, etc. But at the end of the day, they're all volunteer organizations -- just like CAP.

Military rank transfers to CAP. Not the other way around. Someone let me know when a (not previously federally commissioned) CAP officer transfers to the military with their CAP rank intact. The two are not interchangable. CAP officers are not USAF officers. CAP officers are not military officers. I wish people would stop acting like they are.

You know, the guys at the airport working for TSA wear blue trousers and white shirts with blue shoulder boards -- some sporting officer ranks. They're not military officers either.

Do your CAP job well and derive satisfaction from the knowledge that you're doing something good. Hopefully this is the reason you joined CAP in the first place.

We volunteer once a year, and thats when we pay our dues.  The rest of the time we have a job to do, and we do those jobs well

Here here!

:clap:

Volunteer officer in a volunteer organization....I realize that wasn't a choice, but I think it makes necessary distinctions....not least of which is that we are only the "some time" Auxiliary to USAF.

Secondly, never having served in RM (tm) I would not presume to compare myself with anyone who has served in RM (tm) in any capacity.

Bottom line, we're citizens seeking to help our country....the officer grade is largely internal, to identify those in positions of responsibility, and to motivate members.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 28, 2007, 01:15:03 AM
Volunteer officer in a volunteer organization....I realize that wasn't a choice, but I think it makes necessary distinctions....not least of which is that we are only the "some time" Auxiliary to USAF.

So we only need to be professional "some time?"   ;D

Furthermore, I disagree.  Our rank has AS MUCH to do with how we present ourselves to the outside world than how identify ourselves and motivate.

I actually resent the idea that CAP rank is just "pretend."  At first blush, it sounds like humility.  But after hearing it over and over again, it sounds like a child saying "I'm just a kid" when they didn't act responsibly.

IMHO, as volunteers we are given a bit of slack for our failures, but that in no way absolves us of the responsibility of living up to the STANDARDS of an officer.

You, me, and everyone of us has a responsibility to every soldier, sailor, Marine or airman who has ever worn a uniform to fulfill the FULL obligation of those fancy doodads we stick on our collars.  Anything less is a craven act.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 28, 2007, 03:05:26 PM
I actually resent the idea that CAP rank is just "pretend."  At first blush, it sounds like humility.  But after hearing it over and over again, it sounds like a child saying "I'm just a kid" when they didn't act responsibly.

Never really thought about it that way, but it makes sense to me.

I fully agree, we absolutely have a duty to live up to the standard of that rank. If you feel you can't or would rather not live up to that duty and that standard then wear the golf shirt so you are not wearing a rank and you are not in a military looking uniform. to do any less is an insult to the tradition of the military service and the men and women who wear the uniform of our United States Military.


 

So what exactly is the "standard of the rank?"  What do we expect of a MP who is a Major that we don't from a MP who is a SMWOG?

Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

So can someone explain to me the "standard" of grade that has neither authority nor responsibility?  As members of CAP and trained specialist we have professional standards of performance and conduct, but none of it changes based on grade.

Quote from: DrJbdm on November 28, 2007, 08:44:46 PM
we absolutely have a duty to live up to the standard of that rank.

What standard of the rank?  Our rank only applies within the Civil Air Patrol and is based on standards of the Civil Air Patrol.  It is not the standards of the US Military.  The RM gives us the courtesy due the rank - but it is just a courtesy.   I am proud to serve in the Civil Air Patrol - but I don't pretend it is something it is not.  

Oh, for a reality check, next time you are in the BX, move to the front of the line in the check-out that says "military in uniform has priority".

One of the problems of grade is the various methods of promoting that has occured and developed over the history of CAP. At one time a Wing Commander could promote and even appoint any NCO through LtCol grade on a new member upon joining. During another period to atain O-5 required completion of:
ECI 7C
SOS
Industrial College of the Armed Forces (now National Defense University)
ACSC
AWC
In other words the promotion roughly equaled USAF requirements.
Since then the training requirements have been lowered with ICAF and AWC dropped. CAP PD is supposed to fill the training void, but with few exceptions, leadership is not included in the training to any degree.  Responsibility and authority in a volunteer organization can't function as one is based on the other and a member can ignore an order if the person giving it doesn't have the authority. The only answer is the 2B and chances are that could be appealed.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 28, 2007, 09:07:28 PM
So what exactly is the "standard of the rank?"  What do we expect of a MP who is a Major that we don't from a MP who is a SMWOG?

Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command

even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

So can someone explain to me the "standard" of grade that has neither authority nor responsibility?  As members of CAP and trained specialist we have professional standards of performance and conduct, but none of it changes based on grade.

Officership is much more than the legal ability to give a lawful order, or the legal condition of being subject to the UCMJ.  Officership, includes a high moral character, strong leadership, moral and physical courage, sense of duty, and personal example.

As far as the airport example, going over and trying to give an order is stupid.  Conversely, doing nothing is a dereliction.  In that situation, I would simply go over and tell them to stop whatever behavior it is, politely.  If asked if that's an order, I would say "no legally I can't give you and order."  Why is it so hard to separate doing the right thing for the right reasons from some barracks lawyer opinion of what CAP grade means?

What standards am I talking about then?

Being at the appropriate place at the appropriate time in the appropriate uniform.
Being accountable for your actions and those subordinate to you
Taking appropriate action in the absence of orders.
Leading by example.
Disregarding personal discomfort when it detracts from mission accomplishment.

The list goes on and on.

This is not an indictment of CAP at all, but rather an attempt to point out that being an officer is much more than the piece of paper signed by the President.  It is an approach to the job, it is a frame of mind, it is a personal commitment.  Frankly, most of the CAP members I know are highly dedicated individuals who embody most of the things that I have pointed out.

The point is simply this: I have read here and on other threads those bemoaning this, that, and this other about CAP rank, and its meaning.  ANd I disagree with those who hold it meaningless outside of CAP.

The bottom line is this:  As a former military officer, when seeing a person wearing a uniform of the United States, and wearing the rank of an officer two things come to mind. Firstly, I have an expectation of that persons professionalism and dedication.  Secondly, I recognize him as a member of the officer fraternity.  A comrade in arms.

So please, understand what I am saying.  I don't really care about the "LEGAL" status of the CAP Officer, what I care about is the fact that he is a fellow officer and that he ascribes to same level of professional conduct.

And as far as the BX example goes, please.  The only time I could/would condone that is a mission aircrew getting ready to fly a real world sortie.  But completely aside from that, why is that people seem to focus on the "perquisites" so much, and so little upon the obligation?

Well said, Paratrooper.

An officer sees to the mission and takes care of his troops before seeing to his own comfort.

The reason that uniformed troops get head-of-the-line privileges at the BX is so they can get back to work and carry out their missions.  It has never occured to me to use that privilege when I was in uniform but not needed back at a duty station.

Regardless of what uniform I'm wearing.

High moral character, strong leadership, moral and physical courage, sense of duty, and personal example?? These aren't officer qualities. They're basic standards of conduct. Most people I know ascribe these qualities to their everyday lives. It's called being a responsible adult.

We are talking about CAP's Core Values - which are taken from the USAF's Core Values.

Extracted from Bobbie Tourville's article, "Making Core Values Make Sense".

Core values establishes a common set of expectations of conduct for all members. The meaning and power of the values CAP has chosen: INTEGRITY, VOLUNTEER SERVICE, EXCELLENCE, and RESPECT are easily inferred by all who read them. These words effectively replace dozens of pages of directives, and simply articulate what's right and what's wrong, and form a tool by which conduct is measured. They are the embodiment of how CAP members are expected to treat each other and the people they come in contact with -- of man's expectations of fellow man.

Quote from: riffraff on November 29, 2007, 02:18:46 AM
High moral character, strong leadership, moral and physical courage, sense of duty, and personal example?? These aren't officer qualities. They're basic standards of conduct. Most people I know ascribe these qualities to their everyday lives. It's called being a responsible adult.

RiffRaff:

I'd have to disagree with you.  Most people lack a strong sense of duty, and far too many people in America lack physical courage.  Even more lack moral courage.  Most of American society believes that any misconduct that is not legally provable is allowed.

That's why a society based on "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate among us those who do" is such a foreign concept to so many.

"I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate among us those who do" came from the military academies. It was adopted by many CAP cadet squadrons as an oath and during the 1950's Florida Wing Encampments was required to be learned by all cadets.
To a great degree this is still followed by cadets, but sadly not by many senior members with authority, or even IGs. Now the politics of CAP takes presidence. Regardless of grade. And to many this is the problem of the grade syatem of CAP.

I'm working hard to make my upcoming 2nd Lt. grade mean something other than sitting around for 6 months. I'm working on both Scanner and GTM training, fulfilled half of my PA Tech rating (aside from TIS), been to every meeting and event, and have recruited several new members. Stil have 3 months to go. My goal is to be Scanner qualified and have everything for Tech but TIS finished before I get my bars.

Regardless of what others say, CAP grade is very important to me. I wasn't able to serve in the RM, which was something I dreamed about since a child. I don't think a week went by in my adult life that I didn't wish things could have been different and I could have been in the service. When I found CAP, it was a dream come true.

Going back to the original question in the thread: if there was any chance of me being able to qualify for a true commision I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Quote from: riffraff on November 29, 2007, 02:18:46 AM
High moral character, strong leadership, moral and physical courage, sense of duty, and personal example?? These aren't officer qualities. They're basic standards of conduct. Most people I know ascribe these qualities to their everyday lives. It's called being a responsible adult.

Riffraff: If most people you know are that way, then I need to move to your neighborhood!

Maybe I'm a "glass half-empty" kind of guy, but IMO, nowadays reponsible adults top Pandas and Bengal Tigers on the endangered species list.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 28, 2007, 11:57:54 PM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 28, 2007, 09:07:28 PM
So what exactly is the "standard of the rank?"  What do we expect of a MP who is a Major that we don't from a MP who is a SMWOG?

Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command

even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

So can someone explain to me the "standard" of grade that has neither authority nor responsibility?  As members of CAP and trained specialist we have professional standards of performance and conduct, but none of it changes based on grade.

Officership is much more than the legal ability to give a lawful order, or the legal condition of being subject to the UCMJ.  Officership, includes a high moral character, strong leadership, moral and physical courage, sense of duty, and personal example.

As far as the airport example, going over and trying to give an order is stupid.  Conversely, doing nothing is a dereliction.  In that situation, I would simply go over and tell them to stop whatever behavior it is, politely.  If asked if that's an order, I would say "no legally I can't give you and order."  Why is it so hard to separate doing the right thing for the right reasons from some barracks lawyer opinion of what CAP grade means?

What standards am I talking about then?

Being at the appropriate place at the appropriate time in the appropriate uniform.
Being accountable for your actions and those subordinate to you
Taking appropriate action in the absence of orders.
Leading by example.
Disregarding personal discomfort when it detracts from mission accomplishment.

The list goes on and on.

This is not an indictment of CAP at all, but rather an attempt to point out that being an officer is much more than the piece of paper signed by the President.  It is an approach to the job, it is a frame of mind, it is a personal commitment.  Frankly, most of the CAP members I know are highly dedicated individuals who embody most of the things that I have pointed out.

The point is simply this: I have read here and on other threads those bemoaning this, that, and this other about CAP rank, and its meaning.  ANd I disagree with those who hold it meaningless outside of CAP.

The bottom line is this:  As a former military officer, when seeing a person wearing a uniform of the United States, and wearing the rank of an officer two things come to mind. Firstly, I have an expectation of that persons professionalism and dedication.  Secondly, I recognize him as a member of the officer fraternity.  A comrade in arms.

So please, understand what I am saying.  I don't really care about the "LEGAL" status of the CAP Officer, what I care about is the fact that he is a fellow officer and that he ascribes to same level of professional conduct.

And as far as the BX example goes, please.  The only time I could/would condone that is a mission aircrew getting ready to fly a real world sortie.  But completely aside from that, why is that people seem to focus on the "perquisites" so much, and so little upon the obligation?

It sounds like you are talking about generic "officer stuff."  Qualities we'd expect of EVERY officer member - from a 2d Lt to a Lt Col.  But that's not the same as "standard of rank."

That implies different standards for different ranks.  And frankly, we don't have those.  Because there is no required difference in conduct, authority or responsiblity between CAP officer grades.

I think that's the point of contention  here.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 03:38:35 PM
That implies different standards for different ranks.  And frankly, we don't have those.  Because there is no required difference in conduct, authority or responsiblity between CAP officer grades.

I don't think it's a case of differences between the grades, but that we have people that ignore the higher grade anyway. In my unit, there are a few that outrank the commander. If they give me a sensible order that doesn't conflict with the commanders directions, I'm going to follow it. I do that from time in the military that taught me obey those orders.

When you have people that have never learned that lesson, that's where the problems begin. Or with people that have decided that only commanders have authority. The other ranking personnel do have authority as far as I'm concerned, but the commanders priorities take precedence.

It's not really a case of whether or not they have vested authority, it's mostly whether or not you choose to obey. When you know better, choosing to ignore orders is your own integrity violation. Just because there may not be repercussions, doesn't make it right.

Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 03:38:35 PM

It sounds like you are talking about generic "officer stuff."  Qualities we'd expect of EVERY officer member - from a 2d Lt to a Lt Col.  But that's not the same as "standard of rank."

That implies different standards for different ranks.  And frankly, we don't have those.  Because there is no required difference in conduct, authority or responsibility between CAP officer grades.

I think that's the point of contention  here.

Fundamentally, there is nothing really different about the standards of an O-1 versus an O-10.  The difference lies in the maturity, experience, knowledge, and scope of responsibilities.  That affects the expectations.

The standard I meant was the standard of an OFFICER, versus Other Ranks (to borrow the British usage.)

Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 03:38:35 PM
It sounds like you are talking about generic "officer stuff."  Qualities we'd expect of EVERY officer member - from a 2d Lt to a Lt Col.  But that's not the same as "standard of rank."

That implies different standards for different ranks.  And frankly, we don't have those.  Because there is no required difference in conduct, authority or responsiblity between CAP officer grades.

I think that's the point of contention  here.

Exactly correct. The qualities that are being described have to do with morals and ethics, not rank.

Back to rank for a second:
How many would be willing to give up their present rank and be reclassed as WOs?

All SMs would be WO ranks -- WO1 thru CW5. Former military officers would be appointed to WO-grades commensurate with their O-grades/WO-grades, as applicable. Basically take our current rank/ special appointment structure and replace the O-grades with WO grades.

Only CC/CVC would be commissioned ranks (starting at Captain for Sqn CC) and those ranks would only apply while in those positions. Vacate the position and they revert to their previous WO rank. Maybe 2LT and 1LT for staff types and/or former CCs stay in the lower commissioned ranks.

The USAF is unlikely to have an issue with CAP WO grades, especially since USAF doesn't have any -- thereby solving their "CAP officers trying to pass themselves as USAF officers" problem. CAP commissioned officers will be readily identifiable as command types and SMs as WOs ensure the Sqn CC will always be the senior ranking officer -- i.e. no internal or external ambiguity as to who's in charge.

In the US military system, WOs (except for WO1) are commissioned officers so everyone still gets to be an officer. To get the salute crowd all riled up, WOs don't salute each other -- at least not in the Army.

And just to add to the misery index, dump all the USAF uniforms and make the blue-bag, BBDU, and TPU the only CAP uniforms. No height/weight requirements. Common sense grooming requirements.

There's something for everyone (to complain about):
- poser-deterring military-style rank system
- clear promotion paths (WO) that won't conflict with command positions
- latitude for initial appointments based upon prior military service or skills
- clear-cut command structure -- i.e. only command positions are commissioned ranks
- poser-deterring military style uniforms instantly identifiable as CAP

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 28, 2007, 03:05:26 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 28, 2007, 01:15:03 AM
Volunteer officer in a volunteer organization....I realize that wasn't a choice, but I think it makes necessary distinctions....not least of which is that we are only the "some time" Auxiliary to USAF.

So we only need to be professional "some time?"   ;D

Furthermore, I disagree.  Our rank has AS MUCH to do with how we present ourselves to the outside world than how identify ourselves and motivate.

I actually resent the idea that CAP rank is just "pretend."  At first blush, it sounds like humility.  But after hearing it over and over again, it sounds like a child saying "I'm just a kid" when they didn't act responsibly.

IMHO, as volunteers we are given a bit of slack for our failures, but that in no way absolves us of the responsibility of living up to the STANDARDS of an officer.

You, me, and everyone of us has a responsibility to every soldier, sailor, Marine or airman who has ever worn a uniform to fulfill the FULL obligation of those fancy doodads we stick on our collars.  Anything less is a craven act.

That is not what I said.....in case you hadn't noticed, the entire US military is 'all volunteer'...volunteer is not a dirty word! Nor is it an excuse for lack of professionalism, inattention to detail, or slipshod performance of duty.

While I agree wholeheartedly that we should train and serve in as professional a manner as possible, I still feel it is important to bear firmly in mind that we are quite distinct from professional soldiers...supporting the USAF (and by extension all the services, and our nation) is important.....but it strikes me that it is equally important that we not encourage the 'wannabe' mentality, anymore than the 'Rambo' or 'GOB' viewpoints....each, in different ways, can be very damaging to CAP and its missions.

We are, in fact, volunteer officers in a voluntary organization. Legally we are not always an 'instrumentality of the United States' -- but that does not make us any less patriotic citizens seeking to help neighbor, community and nation in time of need.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 28, 2007, 09:07:28 PM
Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

Now, just back up a minute. A fresh faced LT pilot in the Army might be a platoon leader on the ground, but he's a co-pilot behind a WO when they strap in, and he does what his "boss" tells him. We all knwo the difference between rank & grade. It's not that uncommon for someone to be in a ranking position but not have the senior grade. It does happen lots more in CAP, but that doesn't change anything.

The other side of that is... just cause that major has done their time & is stepping back doesn't for a minute relieve them of the responsibility to take charge or contribute commensurate with their grade. There is innate responsibility at each level, even if it's denied, and if the person doesn't want to accept it then they are welcome to change insignia.

QuoteIf I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation. That said, we do certainly have big behavioral problems in CAP because we're "just civilians & not bound by any force of law." A lot of people around here have proposed making us answerable to the UCMJ, or writing a code that intermingles law & internal policy to hold people accountable to standards along the same lines as the military. I would tend to support something like that. In the meantime, the lack of penalty/enforcability does not relieve you of your responsiblity.

QuoteSo can someone explain to me the "standard" of grade that has neither authority nor responsibility?  As members of CAP and trained specialist we have professional standards of performance and conduct, but none of it changes based on grade.

On one side of that you're right. It hasn't always been that way & we desperately need to fix it. On another more idealistic side under which a lot of us as officers operate regardless of what the book says, well that's just wrong & we're not willing to tolerate less than what the grade means.

Quote from: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:34:13 AM

QuoteIf I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

There is no CAP policy that requires CAP officers to involve themselves in military discipline matters. CAP rank carries no weight or authority outside of CAP. To interfere with members of the military, under the pretext of being an 'officer of higher rank', is actually a federal crime. You're far more likely to receive a 2b for impersonating an officer of the armed forces --- which CAP officers are not.

If it's CAP members getting out of line, that's another matter.

Quote from: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:34:13 AM

Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 28, 2007, 09:07:28 PM
Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

Now, just back up a minute. A fresh faced LT pilot in the Army might be a platoon leader on the ground, but he's a co-pilot behind a WO when they strap in, and he does what his "boss" tells him. We all knwo the difference between rank & grade. It's not that uncommon for someone to be in a ranking position but not have the senior grade. It does happen lots more in CAP, but that doesn't change anything.

The minute those two are back on the ground, guess who's in charge, and who write's whose OER?

The rank inversion in the cockpit or in the operating room is common.  Elsewhere, not so much.  We expect ranking officers to hold positions of authority over those of lesser rank.

Quote from: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:34:13 AM
The other side of that is... just cause that major has done their time & is stepping back doesn't for a minute relieve them of the responsibility to take charge or contribute commensurate with their grade. There is innate responsibility at each level, even if it's denied, and if the person doesn't want to accept it then they are welcome to change insignia.

Good opinion (and I'd agree), but not how CAP works.  The major who steps down has zero responsiblity and authority.  Zero.

Quote from: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:34:13 AM

QuoteIf I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so.

Again, not how CAP works. I think it SHOULD work that way, but it doesn't.    The regs simply don't support that.  I wish they did, but they don't.


IMHO, CAP would run a lot better if there was inherent authority and responsibility tied to grade, because it would make more folks responsible for keeping things running smoothly.  But it would only work if members had to hold positions equal to their grade, or turn the bars in.  If you give a Lt Col full time authority of Captains, you can't then assign that Lt Col as the full time subordinate to a Captain.  That's just a Catch-22.

Quote from: riffraff on November 30, 2007, 02:02:04 PM

Quote from: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:34:13 AM

QuoteIf I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

There is no CAP policy that requires CAP officers to involve themselves in military discipline matters. CAP rank carries no weight or authority outside of CAP. To interfere with members of the military, under the pretext of being an 'officer of higher rank', is actually a federal crime. You're far more likely to receive a 2b for impersonating an officer of the armed forces --- which CAP officers are not.

If it's CAP members getting out of line, that's another matter.

IF I were in uniform at the airport (An unlikely event) and I saw a soldier/sailor/marine/airman/other behaving in an unprofesional manner, I would be in a bit of a quandary.  On one hand, you are correct, I have no legal authority to give an order to stop whatever nonsense is going on.  On the other hand, the couple of hundred people who don't know and don't understand about legal authority are going to see a major taking no action while troopers make fools of themselves.

So, my solution:

1.  Legal authority is meaningless.  Even if I were in my role as an Army officer, I am travelling to one place, the troop is traveling to another, and I cannot, in a practical sense, enforce any order I give.  "Do not order that which you cannot enforce."

2.  This is the difference between "Command authority" and "Leadership."  I would approach the troop, identify myself, and suggest in a friendly way that his/her conduct is not in keeping with the standards of the service.  I would maintain a command presence, hold eye contact, and suggest alternative behaviors (Coffee, for example, instead of more bourbon).

3.  If this did not work, I would advise that there are legal consequences to his behavior.

4.  If the troop STILL failed to modify his/her conduct, and reminded my of my status as a CAP officer who had no command authority over military personnel, I would say something like:  "That is true, Airman, I cannot give you a lawful order.  I can, however, give you sound advice.  I have been trying to do exactly that.  Now, I want you to think about something:  What do you think your commander would do if he got a letter from a major in the Air Force Auxiliary reporting to him that an airman under his command was behaving badly in a public airport?  Do I need to write that letter, or can we, as professionals, agree to act as such?"

Failure to take action in such a case would not subject you to actions in a court of law.  The court of public opinion, however, has completely different rules of evidence.

QuoteThat's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

I know of a CAP member who "stepped in" to something sort of like this situation and it was involving a CAP member.  And there was a demotion involved -- he got demoted for stepping in. 

Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2007, 04:47:46 PM

QuoteThat's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

I know of a CAP member who "stepped in" to something sort of like this situation and it was involving a CAP member.  And there was a demotion involved -- he got demoted for stepping in. 

My eyebrows are REALLY going up on that one. ... of course, I dont know the story.

Ouch.  That's wince inducing.

Course, it may because he stepped in a screwed things up worse.


But I think in general terms "stepping in" should be encouraged. 

I recallreading about a Navy Chaplain who was reprimanded for not stepping in on an airplane to square away some drunk sailors who were harassing the flight attendants.

His defense was (1) "the sailers weren't in my unit" and (2) "I'm just a chaplain."

The response was "You're an officer in the USN.  You had the responsiblity and authority to fix things.  You failed."


Imagine, just imagine, if we held CAP officers to that standard.

Quote from: Dragoon on December 03, 2007, 07:50:41 PM
But I think in general terms "stepping in" should be encouraged. 

I recallreading about a Navy Chaplain who was reprimanded for not stepping in on an airplane to square away some drunk sailors who were harassing the flight attendants.

His defense was (1) "the sailers weren't in my unit" and (2) "I'm just a chaplain."

The response was "You're an officer in the USN.  You had the responsiblity and authority to fix things.  You failed."

The big difference is we're not comparing apples to apples. Military members do have the responsibility to intervene in discipline matters involving other military members. However, a military member has zero legal authority to intercede in matters between non-military folks.

Using your naval example, replace the drunken sailors with drunken fisherman and your naval officer will be stepping out of bounds if he attempts to use his military rank in the same capacity of a law enforcement officer.

I'm in no way suggesting that people shouldn't react. Clearly there are moral/ethical grounds to intercede in the example given. However any involvement undertaken would need to be as John Q. Public, concerned citizen and not as J.Q. Public, Major, CAP.

RiffRaff:

I do not understand your point.

1.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken USAF enlisted member in uniform and takes action to attenuate situation.  Uses persuasion and good leadership skills to attenuate misconduct, and does NOT try to give an unenforceable order.

2.  Situation:  USN Chaplain in uniform sees drunken USN enlisted persons, and FAILS to take action.  He gets spanked, and rightly so.

3.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken CAP members and takes action, but gets spanked for doing so... why?

None of these involve military or CAP guys trying to enforce law on civilians.  I don't understand the "Fishermen" comment.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 04, 2007, 02:15:06 AM
RiffRaff:

I do not understand your point.

1.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken USAF enlisted member in uniform and takes action to attenuate situation.  Uses persuasion and good leadership skills to attenuate misconduct, and does NOT try to give an unenforceable order.

2.  Situation:  USN Chaplain in uniform sees drunken USN enlisted persons, and FAILS to take action.  He gets spanked, and rightly so.

3.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken CAP members and takes action, but gets spanked for doing so... why?

None of these involve military or CAP guys trying to enforce law on civilians.  I don't understand the "Fishermen" comment.

1.  Fine so long as it is done as John Q. Public -- aka a concerned citizen. Not fine if the J.Q. Public, Maj, CAP asserts that he has an obligation/duty to deal with the problem due his rank -- i.e. CAP officers have no authority over military personnel.

2.  Failure to act. Very clear cut.

3. I did not make any comments that this was improper. CAP polices itself.

4. I was creating a 4th scenario for comparison purposes, using the USN Chaplain scenario as a basis but substituting drunken fisherman in place of drunken sailors. In this scenario I was attempting to illustrate the USN officers lack of jurisdiction/authority over non-military personnel -- i.e. by virtue of his rank, the USN officer cannot 'order' drunken civilians around.

Anyone can approach military members and say "thank you for your service, but you gentleman (or ladies) are not acting very professional".  I have no problem confronting people, and have in the past without even giving them the hint that I am a military Officer. 

As far as this subject goes......as a CAP member, you know more about the military than an average person (for sake of argument lets agree on that).  You should act appropriately to see that a servicemember is not making an ass of him or herself.  Consider it a civic duty.......you see if you think they are misbehaving, then everyone else around you will most likely notice it too.  No need to be like "I am a CAP Major.....give me your CAC card, I am calling your Commander".  Just act civil, and express your concerns for the actions you saw.


Anyway......what does this relate to Commissions?  You know if they issued Commissions to CAP you would be legally bound to uphold good order and discipline I guess. 

You guys are all vector and no thrust on this one.
It's done.