NCO Duty Positions and Responsibilities

[Storm Chaser]

I hate to bring the NCO topic again, but is anyone currently using the NCO positions available in eServices?

It's been two years since the new NCO promotion program was announced and a little over a year since the last revision of CAPR 35-5. I know there were talks about a new CAPR 20-1 covering the NCO positions, but I haven't seen it yet. In the mean time, the positions are available in eServices and are being used by some units and higher headquarters across CAP.

I'm even considering appointing a SNCO as Group NCO. The problem is, I don't know exactly what a Group NCO is supposed to do. Our wing has one assigned, but there has been no guidance on what their role is supposed to be. I've heard that of an advisor, but advisor on what? We have no other NCOs in our group, so there's no NCO matters to advise on.

Can anyone with first hand knowledge of this program shed some light? Are there defined responsibilities for these NCO positions, even if only as a draft?

[lordmonar]

Talk to you wing snco

[Storm Chaser]

Already did. A couple of times. Didn't get much. I'm looking for specific roles, functions and duties.

Do you have any useful information?

[lordmonar]

I have the Draft from January.

[Storm Chaser]

That's a start. Thank you.

[winterg]

Is there a channel that information about the new NCO program is being released through that I am just not seeing?  I haven't heard much about it outside the announcement and the lengthy discussion here previously.  I have been waiting for something that explains what incentive there would be for a prospective member to choose the NCO route over the officer route.

[MSG Mac]

CMSgt Eldridge stated at the National Conference that he and the National Staff/DP were working on some changes to the current program which would be announced soon (hopefully by News Years, because he said a month or two).

[Storm Chaser]

If this program is to be successful beyond a few members choosing to wear stripes instead of bars or oak leaves, then we really need to define what the role of the CAP NCO will be. The duty positions and responsibilities in the draft provided by Lordmonar, while a start, are too broad and generic. The only specific function that I can see is to assist in recruiting additional enlisted members. But how can they even do that successfully without a clear and distinct NCO role in CAP?

Tailoring the PD program to suit a "new" NCO tier would only be effective if CAP NCOs have specific roles, distinct from those of CAP officers. As of right now, we have a few NCO positions with no real duties or responsibilities. But other than that, NCOs can do anything an officer can do except command a squadron or higher. That's not a good enough incentive to recruit additional NCOs. In fact, every military NCO we've recruited in my AOR during the past year, but one, has chosen to trade their stripes for bars. We've try to make a case for them to remain NCOs, but the lack of direction and guidance from above makes it difficult for us to make a good case in favor of them remaining NCOs in CAP. They don't see much of an incentive or even a purpose to keeping their stripes.

[kwe1009]

If this program is to be successful beyond a few members choosing to wear stripes instead of bars or oak leaves, then we really need to define what the role of the CAP NCO will be. The duty positions and responsibilities in the draft provided by Lordmonar, while a start, are too broad and generic. The only specific function that I can see is to assist in recruiting additional enlisted members. But how can they even do that successfully without a clear and distinct NCO role in CAP?

Tailoring the PD program to suit a "new" NCO tier would only be effective if CAP NCOs have specific roles, distinct from those of CAP officers. As of right now, we have a few NCO positions with no real duties or responsibilities. But other than that, NCOs can do anything an officer can do except command a squadron or higher. That's not a good enough incentive to recruit additional NCOs. In fact, every military NCO we've recruited in my AOR during the past year, but one, has chosen to trade their stripes for bars. We've try to make a case for them to remain NCOs, but the lack of direction and guidance from above makes it difficult for us to make a good case in favor of them remaining NCOs in CAP. They don't see much of an incentive or even a purpose to keeping their stripes.

Agreed.  I don't understand how this program will help CAP in any way.  Someone should do a cost-benefit analysis on the new CAP NCO program to see if it is even worth the time and money that has been invested into it at this point.  I really don't see the need or the benefit.  Just how many former NCOs are not joining CAP because there isn't an effective NCO program?  I bet that number is probably a two digit number nationwide.

[Storm Chaser]

My issue is not so much with the program, but with the implementation. This program has been half implemented and NHQ has been moot about what the real goal and direction with this program is.

There are several reasons why NCOs are the backbone of the military. First, there are more NCOs than officers. Second, NCOs have jobs that are different and unique from officers. Third, they're the first line supervisors of the enlisted troops. Fourth, there are enlisted troops to supervise. And finally, they don't normally join the military as NCOs, but have to enlist and work their way up the ranks. By the time they become NCOs, they have real military experience, unlike the majority of 2d Lts who outrank these NCOs.

Is that CAP's ultimate goal? Are we going to make officer appointments and promotions harder? Are we going to make the majority of our new members join as "enlisted" and work through the NCO grades, while at the same time shrinking our officer corps? Are we going to redefine NCO and officer roles? These and many other questions need to be answered if we are to have a significant NCO program in CAP. Otherwise, all we've really done is accommodate a minority of members that, for whatever reasons (none addressed by CAP), have opted to keep or revert back to their stripes. The main difference is they can now promote.

[TheSkyHornet]

I think part of the reason for the NCO program was that it was an incentive to get prior military NCOs to join CAP with the feeling of continuing their military service, not forfeiting their rank for a CAP officer rank. But many prior NCOs, and even junior enlisted, have no problem stepping into a CAP officer role; but you still get some that may be hesitant. It's something that I've heard come up in discussion from time to time, and you do get a few prior NCOs who will hang around meetings but not actually join or really "contribute." They just like the social aspect of it, sort of like a VFW/American Legion to them.

Some CAP squadrons have so many officers that they don't have the room to act in officer capacities. Even as officers, they serve in what would be regarded as an NCO role in the military. The issue CAP has in some respects is that positions aren't filled as needed but created as faces come in. You may have a cadet program where there are 5 or 6 CP specialty officers and an NCO, and only 2 or 3 of the officers actually act as officers because there are so many hands in the pot. Some squadrons are just so big on the senior member side that there's more to do than what is really necessary to be done, and everyone becomes supervisors/trainers.

[kwe1009]

I think part of the reason for the NCO program was that it was an incentive to get prior military NCOs to join CAP with the feeling of continuing their military service, not forfeiting their rank for a CAP officer rank. But many prior NCOs, and even junior enlisted, have no problem stepping into a CAP officer role; but you still get some that may be hesitant. It's something that I've heard come up in discussion from time to time, and you do get a few prior NCOs who will hang around meetings but not actually join or really "contribute." They just like the social aspect of it, sort of like a VFW/American Legion to them.

Some CAP squadrons have so many officers that they don't have the room to act in officer capacities. Even as officers, they serve in what would be regarded as an NCO role in the military. The issue CAP has in some respects is that positions aren't filled as needed but created as faces come in. You may have a cadet program where there are 5 or 6 CP specialty officers and an NCO, and only 2 or 3 of the officers actually act as officers because there are so many hands in the pot. Some squadrons are just so big on the senior member side that there's more to do than what is really necessary to be done, and everyone becomes supervisors/trainers.

You bring up some great points, especially about have so many hands in the pot. I have seen squadrons with about 15 cadets and half a dozen Senior Members involved in Cadet Programs.  It just turns into a mess with too many chiefs and not enough Indians.  Adding NCOs will not make such situations any better. 

To keep people involved in a volunteer organization is very important.  That is the reason that jobs are created as new people come in.  To have a new person join and not have a job will quickly lead to boredom and that new member will soon become a ghost member and then a former member.  The real trick is to keep everyone actively engaged and happy.  Much easier said than done.

[TheSkyHornet]

I think part of the reason for the NCO program was that it was an incentive to get prior military NCOs to join CAP with the feeling of continuing their military service, not forfeiting their rank for a CAP officer rank. But many prior NCOs, and even junior enlisted, have no problem stepping into a CAP officer role; but you still get some that may be hesitant. It's something that I've heard come up in discussion from time to time, and you do get a few prior NCOs who will hang around meetings but not actually join or really "contribute." They just like the social aspect of it, sort of like a VFW/American Legion to them.

Some CAP squadrons have so many officers that they don't have the room to act in officer capacities. Even as officers, they serve in what would be regarded as an NCO role in the military. The issue CAP has in some respects is that positions aren't filled as needed but created as faces come in. You may have a cadet program where there are 5 or 6 CP specialty officers and an NCO, and only 2 or 3 of the officers actually act as officers because there are so many hands in the pot. Some squadrons are just so big on the senior member side that there's more to do than what is really necessary to be done, and everyone becomes supervisors/trainers.

You bring up some great points, especially about have so many hands in the pot. I have seen squadrons with about 15 cadets and half a dozen Senior Members involved in Cadet Programs.  It just turns into a mess with too many chiefs and not enough Indians.  Adding NCOs will not make such situations any better. 

To keep people involved in a volunteer organization is very important.  That is the reason that jobs are created as new people come in.  To have a new person join and not have a job will quickly lead to boredom and that new member will soon become a ghost member and then a former member.  The real trick is to keep everyone actively engaged and happy.  Much easier said than done.

That's pretty much the basis of every idea in CAP.

It's a real challenge to try and work efficiently without deterring anyone from joining or renewing their membership. As with most volunteer organizations, especially those in which you have to pay to stay on, telling someone "you can't do this" is a real turn-off. Sure, we do have situations where we have to tell someone our hands are tied on certain issues due to regulations, but usually most people accept that and understand that we are not a free-flowing organization. What I think happens too often is that squadron leaders start thinking "I have too many Cadet Programs officers and not enough Communications Officers" (purely just grabbing jobs for example purposes) and telling someone "No, you can't be a Cadet Programs member because we have enough." Now you just told someone who volunteered in an organization where they can walk away at any point with no ramifications that they can't do the job they wanted to do when they joined. Obviously we can't have everyone be the Deputy Commander for Cadets, but you just turned away a member because you told them they can't even work close to the CDC. Again, this was just an example, not necessarily a Cadet Programs-specific issue.

I think this applies for NCOs as well. "We don't really have a position for an NCO." I've heard squadron commanders say it. And I think it's because they don't really know what to do with that person if they serve as an NCO. Many squadron commanders are not prior military and don't know what it is that differs an NCO from an officer aside from insignia. I think in just about every "recruiting" schpiel I've heard to a potential senior member applicant I have heard the statement "every member needs to have a job, and we usually wear a lot of hats." That's inaccurate because in some squadrons, it's often the same hat being worn by several people because it's over-crowded. Perhaps in those cases, rather than adding another supervisor, some workload should be relinquished from the officer in charge of that specialty in the squadron and handed over to the new person, once trained and adequately mentored. "I'm in charge of planning and coordinating the roster and event. Can you do uniform supplies and welcome packets for new members?" That's a good way to split up duties.

I do feel that NCOs have a place in that process, but it's a matter of identifying the entire role of that specialty track and then breaking down what is it an NCO could do if staying in an NCO-based role on top of that. I think CAP has an issue here with with an NCO being a non-standard position that most squadrons don't actually have, and in this case, the NCO may need to do a CAP officer job and just call themselves the NCO-form of the title (i.e., instead Activities Officer they are the Activities NCO). Large squadrons and even those small squadrons that have some area of supervision and discipline that can be passed down to an NCO function are very much capable of doing so if an NCO came along. The problem is that we are not structured to always have an NCO position, and if we did structure one, we won't always have an NCO to fill that position (back to the wearing of multiple hats).

[RiverAux]

I have the Draft from January.

Wow, even less substantial than I was expecting.  What I get from that is that at the squadron level the job of the NCO is to do the same job as a CAP officer may do, but do it in a different uniform. 

What a gigantic waste of time and resources. 

There are circumstances where I would support a total revamp of CAP's program that would make NCOs as vital as they are to the military, but this does nothing more than say we have NCOs so that we can claim that not everyone is an officer -- even if 99.9% are.

[THRAWN]

Looks like this discussion is already circling around to the points already made about the proposals. We have all made our points about this, numerous times. Looks like opinions have not changed. Since this has been going on for a few years now, is there any hope of seeing it implemented any time soon? Or conversely, filed away?

[TheSkyHornet]

*Ponders the idea of allowing seniors to join CAP as NCOs without prior military service*

If there is no difference between the role of a CAP NCO and a CAP officer, aside from the limitations of authority and responsibilities in the squadron, and the CAPR 20-1 squadron structure does not have any NCO positions listed, then, really, I don't think there is a purpose for NCOs other than to say you have them.

However, if there is a need for NCOs that we do not want to be filled by officers, then maybe it would be best to change the policies regarding joining CAP as a Senior Member Without Grade transitioning to Officer and open up the NCO corridor for applicants without military experience.

[THRAWN]

*Ponders the idea of allowing seniors to join CAP as NCOs without prior military service*

If there is no difference between the role of a CAP NCO and a CAP officer, aside from the limitations of authority and responsibilities in the squadron, and the CAPR 20-1 squadron structure does not have any NCO positions listed, then, really, I don't think there is a purpose for NCOs other than to say you have them.

However, if there is a need for NCOs that we do not want to be filled by officers, then maybe it would be best to change the policies regarding joining CAP as a Senior Member Without Grade transitioning to Officer and open up the NCO corridor for applicants without military experience.

Not unheard of. SDFs have been doing it for generations, with some measure of success. Here is how it's generally handled:

Minimum bachelor's degree and prior service: officer
Degree and no prior service: enlisted with advanced grade and the opportunity to apply for officer training
Prior service and no degree: enlisted, advanced grade up to grade at discharge
No prior service and no degree: enlisted

Now if they implemented something like that, in addition to identifying specific roles that would be NCO only, it might work.

[kwe1009]

*Ponders the idea of allowing seniors to join CAP as NCOs without prior military service*

If there is no difference between the role of a CAP NCO and a CAP officer, aside from the limitations of authority and responsibilities in the squadron, and the CAPR 20-1 squadron structure does not have any NCO positions listed, then, really, I don't think there is a purpose for NCOs other than to say you have them.

However, if there is a need for NCOs that we do not want to be filled by officers, then maybe it would be best to change the policies regarding joining CAP as a Senior Member Without Grade transitioning to Officer and open up the NCO corridor for applicants without military experience.

Not unheard of. SDFs have been doing it for generations, with some measure of success. Here is how it's generally handled:

Minimum bachelor's degree and prior service: officer
Degree and no prior service: enlisted with advanced grade and the opportunity to apply for officer training
Prior service and no degree: enlisted, advanced grade up to grade at discharge
No prior service and no degree: enlisted

Now if they implemented something like that, in addition to identifying specific roles that would be NCO only, it might work.

That actually makes sense so it is probably doomed to be implemented in CAP.  It does seem odd that people with no military experience can be officers (which by definition have greater responsibility) but can't be an NCO.  It would be nice to see something like that in CAP.

[MacGruff]

I have a young man in my squadron who is an ex-cadet and in the Army National Guard. He rejoined the squadron as a Senior Member just this month. I spoke with him about what he wants to do to contribute to the squadron and his immediate rejoinder was that he wants to be an NCO and NOT AN OFFICER. That was quite vehement and set me back a bit. I opened the regs and showed him what it say there and he is quite happy to serve six months as a SMWOG and then sew on Staff Sergeant stripes.

I was wondering in what way I could use him, and I think that probably the best way is to have him lead the squadron's drill and ceremonies area as he is current on them (yeah, I know I wrote above that he is ARMY, not Air Force!!!). Definitely more current than our other Seniors who were last in uniform 13 or more years ago.

If he likes that idea, I guess I would put him in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track and have him teach the cadets. By the way, our squadron is going through changes right now with a huge cadre leaving as they age out, join the military, or college, and there is a large gap before the newer cadets are ready to take over (The most senior of the junior cadets is a C/Staff Sergeant).

If he wants to wear stripes to do this rather than a butter bar, I have no problem with that.

[MSG Mac]

I am currently pondering going from silver bottle caps to enlisted. Our Wing just posted an opening for CMSgt and as a retired E-8 I meet the requirements for consideration.

[lordmonar]

I have a young man in my squadron who is an ex-cadet and in the Army National Guard. He rejoined the squadron as a Senior Member just this month. I spoke with him about what he wants to do to contribute to the squadron and his immediate rejoinder was that he wants to be an NCO and NOT AN OFFICER. That was quite vehement and set me back a bit. I opened the regs and showed him what it say there and he is quite happy to serve six months as a SMWOG and then sew on Staff Sergeant stripes.

I was wondering in what way I could use him, and I think that probably the best way is to have him lead the squadron's drill and ceremonies area as he is current on them (yeah, I know I wrote above that he is ARMY, not Air Force!!!). Definitely more current than our other Seniors who were last in uniform 13 or more years ago.

If he likes that idea, I guess I would put him in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track and have him teach the cadets. By the way, our squadron is going through changes right now with a huge cadre leaving as they age out, join the military, or college, and there is a large gap before the newer cadets are ready to take over (The most senior of the junior cadets is a C/Staff Sergeant).

If he wants to wear stripes to do this rather than a butter bar, I have no problem with that.

Use him like you would any other CAP member.   He just wears stripes.

[lordmonar]

I am currently pondering going from silver bottle caps to enlisted. Our Wing just posted an opening for CMSgt and as a retired E-8 I meet the requirements for consideration.

please do.    Message me if you want to talk turkey.   

[lordmonar]

I would like once again to make some statements and clarifications about the NCO program.

First there has always been CAP NCOs.....this is not anything new.   We just never had a lot of them as there was no way to promote or progress....and who wants to say a SSgt for his entire CAP career.

Second, the idea that there should NCO jobs and Officer jobs is a great one.   And we are going to get there eventually.   We have to put all the other pieces into place first. 

Baby Steps.

The idea that there is no NEED for CAP NCOs is true.  I admit it.   CAP will not end if we don't have NCOs.   But maybe CAP can be better if we do have NCOs.   And that is what is guiding the committee.   We think that if CAP has a strong NCO corps with a promotion system, a PD system and a support system we can leverage that to make CAP better.

The idea that this is a colossal waste of time....is an interesting one....and maybe a true one.   Hence the reason that it is currently a voluntary one.   No one is being forced to be an NCO.   No one is being told that they must spend their time on the committee or working on any of the project tasking coming out of the committee.  So it is their time to waste.    We are trying hard to make sure that any changes we make to CAP do not add any additional burdens on the squadrons or higher command elements. 

While specific changes to officer requirements, promotions or assignments is NOT a direct tasking, goal or charter of the NCO committee....the White Paper signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force does state that one of the goals of the CAP NCO program is to position CAP to be able to make improvements to the officer corps.

Yes the NCO program is only being implemented in steps and stages.  Yes there have been some false starts and rush to publish issues.   But some of that is by design.   We need to have NCOs to build the NCO PD program.   We have NCOs in CAP but they don't want to wear stripes because there was not way to promote.  So we built a way to promote.  Now we got a lot of former NCOs in CAP who would like to change over...but they don't want to trade Lt Col oak leaves for SSgt stripes....so we are working on a system to remove that barrier.  We need our own PD system.  So we are working on that now.  Once we got those things into place and we build a large enough cadre of NCOs we can then work on how to open up the NCO corps for non-prior military service members.

Once that is in place CAP would then be positioned to make changes to the officer corps and duty positions and truly make Officer Jobs and NCO jobs.

Most of the concerns voiced here on CAPTALK and other forums are making it to the NCO committee and to CAP leadership.     We think we understand them and we are working to address them as necessary.

Remember from the get go this was envisioned as a long term transition program.

If we tried to build a fully functional NCO program with all the bells and whistles onto CAP it would fail miserably.   So we are deliberately taking small incremental steps.   To insure our changes are as painless as possible and to insure that if any of our changes fail, that failure does not do any real damage to CAP.

Okay....thanks for letting me rant.   

[Storm Chaser]

I get that, as of right now, NCOs can do any job available to officers except commander and (possibly) deputy commander. I get that some members may choose to join CAP as NCOs or even revert to previous NCO grades. I get that now they can be promoted, something they couldn't do before. What I don't get is these NCO positions. We have NCO positions at each echelon, some needed for promotion, but no official position description yet. That's not an implementation "in steps and stages", but a half implementation.

That said, it's done and there no sense in dwelling over it. Now we're just waiting for the revision to CAPR 20-1. Unfortunately, the position descriptions in the draft you provided seem too vague. Every job in CAP should have a purpose and I don't get that from those positions. I think they need work and, if there's still time, I recommend they go back to the drawing board and come up with something better, more functional, and practical.

[Alaric]

I have no dog in the hunt other than to say, what does it matter?  As long as grade, position and responsibility have no relationship, grade is meaningless.  We have 1st Lts as squadron commanders with Majors on their staff; all grade really shows (presuming duty performance only) is time in CAP, and PD progression.  If having NCOs makes people happy, then lets have NCOs.  As long as we can perform the mission, I don't care what insignia people wear.

[MSG Mac]

The NCO Corps is badly in  need of a formal training program and definitive roles. My Wing has just an opening for the Wing CMSgt and I am strongly considering applying. But there are so many unanswered questions about the lack of structure and rewrites of CAPR 20-1 and 35-5 to include NCO positions that I am hesitant. 

[winterg]

1. Keep our PD program and specialty track programs the same as now.
2. Change grades awarded in PD program from officer to Enlisted (SSgt - CMSgt)
3. Officer grades reserved for Squadron/Group/Wing/Region Commanders.
4. Go back to arguing about uniforms.

[Storm Chaser]

I have no dog in the hunt other than to say, what does it matter?  As long as grade, position and responsibility have no relationship, grade is meaningless. 

Except that we currently have specific NCO positions in eServices, some required for promotion IAW CAPR 35-5, but not duty description for these positions. Don't you think having meaningful duty position descriptions for these positions matters?

We have 1st Lts as squadron commanders with Majors on their staff; all grade really shows (presuming duty performance only) is time in CAP, and PD progression.  If having NCOs makes people happy, then lets have NCOs.  As long as we can perform the mission, I don't care what insignia people wear.

And I wasn't arguing that.

[TheSkyHornet]

I have no dog in the hunt other than to say, what does it matter?  As long as grade, position and responsibility have no relationship, grade is meaningless. 

Except that we currently have specific NCO positions in eServices, some required for promotion IAW CAPR 35-5, but not duty description for these positions. Don't you think having meaningful duty position descriptions for these positions matters?

We have 1st Lts as squadron commanders with Majors on their staff; all grade really shows (presuming duty performance only) is time in CAP, and PD progression.  If having NCOs makes people happy, then lets have NCOs.  As long as we can perform the mission, I don't care what insignia people wear.

And I wasn't arguing that.

I believe the gentleman's original post was regarding the NCO duties and responsibilities, not what to call them.

Every single duty position, every job, should have a job description associated with it, written somewhere. This is not only so a person knows the extent of their own job, so that other people know the extent of that job.

Does the Operations NCO have the exact same role as the Operations Officer?

[Storm Chaser]

Exactly. In eServices, an NCO can be assigned to the positions of Squadron NCO, Group NCO, etc., but there's no official duty description for those positions. That's why I started this thread.

Lordmonar provided copy of a draft proposal for CAPR 20-1, which covers those positions, albeit with slightly different duty titles. While I appreciate having something to start with, I think those duty descriptions are too vague. If I'm to assign an NCO to these NCO-only positions, I would like to have a better description of their specific duties and responsibilities. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to make the assignment.

[FW]

As there is,yet, no specific duties and responsibilities for CAP NCOs, I think it unwise to assign them an NCO-only position.  Better to treat them as any other member until things are actually written down.  Of course, there is nothing stopping a unit from doing things on their own.  That's what we call a possible "benchmark" in an inspection... :angel:

[jeders]

I've previously made my opinion of the whole NCO program known previously, so I've kept silent on this topic until now. I just read through the draft, which is woefully vague as Storm Chaser has pointed out, and I ran across a curious responsibility for Group Superintendent.

Resolve issues between subordinate squadrons, other groups, wing staff, and outside agencies

What exactly does that mean and how are they supposed to do that? Are we expecting our NCOs to be Vinnie the Enforcer? (I'm picturing Pat Harris walking around with a club with bits of pilots wings sticking out of it) These sound more like something that should be the responsibility of the group commander and not an NCO who has no authority over officers. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[Storm Chaser]

As there is,yet, no specific duties and responsibilities for CAP NCOs, I think it unwise to assign them an NCO-only position.  Better to treat them as any other member until things are actually written down.  Of course, there is nothing stopping a unit from doing things on their own.  That's what we call a possible "benchmark" in an inspection... :angel:

I agree with you, except that some may not be able to promote to MSgt or higher unless they have one of those NCO positions at the group, wing or region according to CAPR 35-5.

[TheSkyHornet]

I've previously made my opinion of the whole NCO program known previously, so I've kept silent on this topic until now. I just read through the draft, which is woefully vague as Storm Chaser has pointed out, and I ran across a curious responsibility for Group Superintendent.

Resolve issues between subordinate squadrons, other groups, wing staff, and outside agencies

What exactly does that mean and how are they supposed to do that? Are we expecting our NCOs to be Vinnie the Enforcer? (I'm picturing Pat Harris walking around with a club with bits of pilots wings sticking out of it) These sound more like something that should be the responsibility of the group commander and not an NCO who has no authority over officers. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

That identifies a huge part of people having different opinions about something because it isn't clearly written out. It's not concise and specific. If you were shaking hands and saying "this is what I do," it would suffice. But to clearly outline your processes and procedures, it's not there...IF CAP wanted everyone in that position to act to a standard across all squadrons.

That being said, obviously there is some trial and error when it comes to writing regulations and defining roles. Sometimes it's not always sufficiently written for the purpose you intended. I think one of CAP's weak areas is the timeliness of getting the regs amended and published.

Someone previously said that the use of NCOs is not new to CAP. If that's the case, I'm assuming that this topic has been brought up in the past, not just on CAP Talk. So why wasn't this addressed sooner? It's being addressed now, definitely, but will changes reflect these questions that have been asked and will they be strong enough to be clear, concise, and specific to mitigate these questions in the future?

Right now, I don't see questions of "why is it this way." I see questions of "what is the purpose." It seems that people don't understand the difference between CAP NCOs and CAP Officers clearly. Not only do I see this as something to be addressed in future publications of the regs, but in the training as well for basic officers when they join, and implement it into the training for unit commanders and deputy commanders.

[FW]

Someone previously said that the use of NCOs is not new to CAP. If that's the case, I'm assuming that this topic has been brought up in the past, not just on CAP Talk. So why wasn't this addressed sooner? It's being addressed now, definitely, but will changes reflect these questions that have been asked and will they be strong enough to be clear, concise, and specific to mitigate these questions in the future?

Right now, I don't see questions of "why is it this way." I see questions of "what is the purpose." It seems that people don't understand the difference between CAP NCOs and CAP Officers clearly. Not only do I see this as something to be addressed in future publications of the regs, but in the training as well for basic officers when they join, and implement it into the training for unit commanders and deputy commanders.

This topic has been brought up many times here, and elsewhere.  CAP NCO grade was used for different purposes at different times in our history.  According to  those who seem to know, the questions raised here are being addressed.  We can only hope we will understand the results and move forward.

Now, the "why is it this way" is simple.  Gen Carr made the decision to expand CAP's NCO Corps to be a meaningful part of the organization.  The Air Force agreed.  The process continues...

[Spam]

Agreed, the January document positions seem very general and nonspecific in duties and responsibilities. Good work in progress, though. (Glass half full, guys). I'm working from the first presumption that the intent was to progress from the general to the specific, and not to keep roles and tasks and skills purposefully blurred for some reason.


Suggestion: I'd like to suggest that some lessons could be learned from a parallel roles and missions debate which has existed for years: what jobs do you give a former Cadet Commander to keep them interested and active and progressing, without stepping on current cadets, or overstepping his/her boundaries?  As a recent DCP, I assigned a task to the GA Wing CAC to come up with a position description document. See attached.  It has a real sample of duties to pick from, as a SUGGESTED list. Not every cadet will make a good CAC rep. Not every cadet will be a good ES or AE instructor. Yet, having a list of tasks helps frame the discussion, yes?

(Caveat: only a couple of units that I know of are using the attached template so far. The main benefit was to the CAC cadet officers themselves, in terms of indirect leadership and committee analysis and report writing, but that's beside the point to an NCO discussion).


For the NCO community, defining specific tasks would seem to be a good thing, from which knowledge, skills and training requirements should be drawn to aid Commanders and SNCOs in making personnel assignments. By that I mean, a Wing Superintendent might interview a guy who was an MTI at Lackland or Great Lakes once upon a time, and another guy who was an engine shop lead, and having specific KSAs for NCO positions could help him make a recommendation to the Commander to assign one to be a resource NCO under the DCP for drill and ceremonies, and the other as an LG NCO in charge of maintenance records or purchasing, etc. A shopping list of skill sets vs tasks, so to speak.


I'm neutral on the whole uniform and grade issue. What I care about is making sure that we max out the use of our volunteer members skills (from which satisfaction and retention and excellence grow).


R/S,
Spam

[THRAWN]

Agreed, the January document positions seem very general and nonspecific in duties and responsibilities. Good work in progress, though. (Glass half full, guys). I'm working from the first presumption that the intent was to progress from the general to the specific, and not to keep roles and tasks and skills purposefully blurred for some reason.


Suggestion: I'd like to suggest that some lessons could be learned from a parallel roles and missions debate which has existed for years: what jobs do you give a former Cadet Commander to keep them interested and active and progressing, without stepping on current cadets, or overstepping his/her boundaries?  As a recent DCP, I assigned a task to the GA Wing CAC to come up with a position description document. See attached.  It has a real sample of duties to pick from, as a SUGGESTED list. Not every cadet will make a good CAC rep. Not every cadet will be a good ES or AE instructor. Yet, having a list of tasks helps frame the discussion, yes?

(Caveat: only a couple of units that I know of are using the attached template so far. The main benefit was to the CAC cadet officers themselves, in terms of indirect leadership and committee analysis and report writing, but that's beside the point to an NCO discussion).


For the NCO community, defining specific tasks would seem to be a good thing, from which knowledge, skills and training requirements should be drawn to aid Commanders and SNCOs in making personnel assignments. By that I mean, a Wing Superintendent might interview a guy who was an MTI at Lackland or Great Lakes once upon a time, and another guy who was an engine shop lead, and having specific KSAs for NCO positions could help him make a recommendation to the Commander to assign one to be a resource NCO under the DCP for drill and ceremonies, and the other as an LG NCO in charge of maintenance records or purchasing, etc. A shopping list of skill sets vs tasks, so to speak.


I'm neutral on the whole uniform and grade issue. What I care about is making sure that we max out the use of our volunteer members skills (from which satisfaction and retention and excellence grow).


R/S,
Spam

I liked everything after the squadron patch...

[Spam]

Ha!  Glad you noticed!  I did put a few little personal stamps on their product... staff work is boring enough, we should have fun where we can.

In past meetings I've run, when it got boring, I declared a 15 minute "Looney Tunes Voice" mandate, where all comments must be done in character. you should see Field Grade fighter pilots alternating between Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd when discussing weapons integration and test.

V/R,
Spam

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

[lordmonar]

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

  Yes it does.   It is not in the regs yet but it is active.  Any prior services or active service enlisted E-1 through E-4 (AB-SrA, Pvt to Specialist) are given an initial appointment to SSgt.

So come back to the dark side CyBorg.

[TheSkyHornet]

Might be an interesting idea to move former cadet NCOs over to CAP NCO grades, like C/SSgt and C/TSgt as E-5s, C/MSgt through C/CMSgt as E-6s, rather than making them SMWOGs since I believe they need to be a C/2d Lt to make SM/FO. Then again, this would still require the duties to be laid out for NCOs, which does seem to be rolling in, albeit slowly.

Just a thought.

[winterg]

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

  Yes it does.   It is not in the regs yet but it is active.  Any prior services or active service enlisted E-1 through E-4 (AB-SrA, Pvt to Specialist) are given an initial appointment to SSgt.

So come back to the dark side CyBorg.

Has this been posted anywhere or is it planned to be posted?

And what if someone left active duty as a Senior Airman and afterward completed mutiple PD levels in CAP? Do they start at SSgt or does CAP progression factor into initial NCO appointment?

[Storm Chaser]

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

  Yes it does.   It is not in the regs yet but it is active.  Any prior services or active service enlisted E-1 through E-4 (AB-SrA, Pvt to Specialist) are given an initial appointment to SSgt.

So come back to the dark side CyBorg.

If it's not in the regs, it's just vaporware. Besides, why would we want to do that? One thing is to promote a former E-4 to SSgt, and another is to appoint an E-1, E-2 or E-3 to an NCO grade. It doesn't make sense, especially when civilians, regardless of education, training and experience, are not afforded the same opportunity.

Instead of spending time figuring out how to promote NCOs, why not focus that effort into figuring out what it is that NCOs are suppose to do in CAP? What's the real purpose of the NCO Corps beyond allowing some members to wear stripes? Where do they fit in the organization?

[TheSkyHornet]

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

  Yes it does.   It is not in the regs yet but it is active.  Any prior services or active service enlisted E-1 through E-4 (AB-SrA, Pvt to Specialist) are given an initial appointment to SSgt.

So come back to the dark side CyBorg.

Has this been posted anywhere or is it planned to be posted?

And what if someone left active duty as a Senior Airman and afterward completed mutiple PD levels in CAP? Do they start at SSgt or does CAP progression factor into initial NCO appointment?

This.

How is it that there's a process supposedly in place for assigning prior service to be CAP NCOs but it is not written in the regulations? As far as I see it, if it's not written anywhere, it doesn't exist, even if it's being implemented. Where's the documentation to support that? I'm not trying to nitpick here. It just seems that there is this continual shortcoming in CAP when it comes to publishing regulations that people are expect to abide by. 

Sorry to be a former member buttinsky, really.

If I were given the opportunity to rejoin CAP as an enlisted man, I would do so.  I left CAP largely over the bullcrackie and politics and pissing contests of who gets to be promoted beyond Captain, and was ultimately told that I had made too many enemies (nothing new; a slight consequence of having your back to the wall and becoming somewhat unpleasant as a result).

Unfortunately, my ANG service does not allow me to rejoin at my last rank.

OK, thanks.

  Yes it does.   It is not in the regs yet but it is active.  Any prior services or active service enlisted E-1 through E-4 (AB-SrA, Pvt to Specialist) are given an initial appointment to SSgt.

So come back to the dark side CyBorg.

If it's not in the regs, it's just vaporware. Besides, why would we want to do that? One thing is to promote a former E-4 to SSgt, and another is to appoint an E-1, E-2 or E-3 to an NCO grade. It doesn't make sense, especially when civilians, regardless of education, training and experience, are not afforded the same opportunity.

Instead of spending time figuring out how to promote NCOs, why not focus that effort into figuring out what it is that NCOs are suppose to do in CAP? What's the real purpose of the NCO Corps beyond allowing some members to wear stripes? Where do they fit in the organization?

This was posted as I was responding. Really liked this one.

[LSThiker]

rather than making them SMWOGs since I believe they need to be a C/2d Lt to make SM/FO.

To go directly to FO, then yes the cadet will need to be 18-20 and have earned the Mitchell.  Otherwise, they will hang out at SM for 3 months, then be promoted to FO.  But then again, since the FO ranks are not tracked by NHQ and the promotion authority is the SQ/CC, that 3 month wait time gets ignored at times. 

[TheSkyHornet]

rather than making them SMWOGs since I believe they need to be a C/2d Lt to make SM/FO.

To go directly to FO, then yes the cadet will need to be 18-20 and have earned the Mitchell.  Otherwise, they will hang out at SM for 3 months, then be promoted to FO.  But then again, since the FO ranks are not tracked by NHQ and the promotion authority is the SQ/CC, that 3 month wait time gets ignored at times.

Truth.

Who's the authority for SM/NCO grades anyway? Are Staff Sergeants under NHQ/Wing authorization? I don't get close to the senior member progression system much, so that area is a little over my head.

[MSG Mac]

CAPR 35-5

[TheSkyHornet]

CAPR 35-5

Ah, I was reading the wrong section. I saw Section F(6-#). What I was looking for what is 1-5.

Although I did spot two subsections "i" divided by Figure 1. 

[lordmonar]

Has this been posted anywhere or is it planned to be posted?

And what if someone left active duty as a Senior Airman and afterward completed mutiple PD levels in CAP? Do they start at SSgt or does CAP progression factor into initial NCO appointment?

No it is not posted any where that I know of.   It is going to be added to the next 35-5.   There are a whole bunch of changes that are either approved or waiting for approval/final tweaking that are going to be sent to the promotion OPRs.

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

[lordmonar]

If it's not in the regs, it's just vaporware.

Yes, I agree with that statement to a point.   But as it has been pointed out CAP is very slow in getting changes to regs out to the field.

Besides, why would we want to do that? One thing is to promote a former E-4 to SSgt, and another is to appoint an E-1, E-2 or E-3 to an NCO grade. It doesn't make sense,.

The reasoning behind it came up when an AD SrA wanted to join CAP as an enlisted person.   The current regs would have required him to join as a SMWOG promote to 2d Lt at six months....and then a year or so down the road (once he put on SSgt) convert over to SSgt.   So it was decided by the Command Chief that we should use some common sense and just let him be appointed a CAP SSgt.    That seemed to be the smartest thing to do.   Down the road we may decided to ask the USAF to allow us to have CAP enlisted ranks.

especially when civilians, regardless of education, training and experience, are not afforded the same opportunity.

Non prior service can't be a NCO at all......ergo your argument is moot.   And what CAP does on the officer side has nothing to do what CAP does on the NCO side.    And I would like to point out that CAP does give advanced grade appointments to civilians based on education, training and experinces (CFIs, Teachers, Doctors, CPAs, Etc.)

Instead of spending time figuring out how to promote NCOs, why not focus that effort into figuring out what it is that NCOs are suppose to do in CAP? What's the real purpose of the NCO Corps beyond allowing some members to wear stripes? Where do they fit in the organization?

We are doing both.  We in fact have done so.   Not to your liking to be sure....but there you go.

[lordmonar]

On the whole slow boat thing about policy changes and promotion changes....I agree with all of you.  CAP has been doing a poor job of getting the word our and getting the policy decisions that have been made into the regs.

But you can only do so much.   We got our changes to the OPRs for the appropriate regulations and we got to wait on those guys to do their jobs.

It is not really a problem with the NCO program but a problem with CAP bureaucracy as a whole.

[Storm Chaser]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

[lordmonar]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

So..... an E-1 wants to join CAP....we make him a 2d Lt.  Over the said E-5 SSgt?  Then, when said E-1 puts on E-5 he can change down to CAP SSgt.  That does not make much sense either.   We would like to just let him join as a AB and move up the ranks...but we don't have enlisted ranks just NCO ranks.  It one of the things we are looking at but it is a back burner thing right now as it requires USAF approval. 

[RogueLeader]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

I'm going to guess that the same logic that allows non-military to become a CAP 2d Lt in 6 months with just a quick Level 1 course, and no real Leadership training like the Real Military ^(tm) does.

[Storm Chaser]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

So..... an E-1 wants to join CAP....we make him a 2d Lt.  Over the said E-5 SSgt?  Then, when said E-1 puts on E-5 he can change down to CAP SSgt.  That does not make much sense either.

I agree; it doesn't make much sense either. That said, even in the military, a SSgt have more experience than a 2d Lt and there's a different level of expectation. NCOs are the backbone of the military because they have the experience and training to make things happen. I guess it's going to be different in CAP.

We would like to just let him join as a AB and move up the ranks...but we don't have enlisted ranks just NCO ranks.  It one of the things we are looking at but it is a back burner thing right now as it requires USAF approval.

And the Air Force doesn't have to approve promoting E-1s and E-2s to CAP SSgt? That's odd. I hope National is not handling the NCO program the same way they handled the CSU.

[Storm Chaser]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

I'm going to guess that the same logic that allows non-military to become a CAP 2d Lt in 6 months with just a quick Level 1 course, and no real Leadership training like the Real Military ^(tm) does.

I've always thought it was odd that someone with no experience, education or training can become a CAP 2d Lt after 6 months with only Level 1. We should, as a minimum, require Officer Basic Course (OBC) for promotion to 2d Lt.

[lordmonar]

I guess it's going to be different in CAP.

Now you are just trolling.   

And the Air Force doesn't have to approve promoting E-1s and E-2s to CAP SSgt? That's odd. I hope National is not handling the NCO program the same way they handled the CSU.

Nope.   The USAF has to approve the use of the rank....but they let us decide how to appoint/promote people to that rank.

And yes....since there is no one trying to do an end run around the USAF's wishes.....there is no danger of pissing off the USAF like HWSNBN did with the CSU.

[TheSkyHornet]

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

I'm going to guess that the same logic that allows non-military to become a CAP 2d Lt in 6 months with just a quick Level 1 course, and no real Leadership training like the Real Military ^(tm) does.

Personally, I'll agree. Making someone a CAP officer isn't necessarily an appropriate jump for someone who's been in the organization for 6 months and had very little input (as many members have when they first join). A lot of senior members get thrown into some pretty big areas of responsibility early on, but many others rank up and don't have a lot of experience. Albeit, your grade in CAP doesn't really reflect your qualifications or expertise.

Why are instrument-rated pilots able to become First Lieutenants after completing their Level 1? What knowledge did they bring to CAP with them, especially if they aren't even a CAP pilot or working in air operations?

One of those things is also the inclusion of E1-E4 ranks to the Enlisted/CAP Rank initial Appointment Matrix.

What's the justification for appointing a brand new E-1 to the CAP grade of SSgt, yet an E-5 with Airman Leadership School (or equivalent), 5 or 7 Level, supervisory experience, and several years time-in-service gets the same appointment to SSgt?

So..... an E-1 wants to join CAP....we make him a 2d Lt.  Over the said E-5 SSgt?  Then, when said E-1 puts on E-5 he can change down to CAP SSgt.  That does not make much sense either.

I agree; it doesn't make much sense either. That said, even in the military, a SSgt have more experience than a 2d Lt and there's a different level of expectation. NCOs are the backbone of the military because they have the experience and training to make things happen. I guess it's going to be different in CAP.

We would like to just let him join as a AB and move up the ranks...but we don't have enlisted ranks just NCO ranks.  It one of the things we are looking at but it is a back burner thing right now as it requires USAF approval.

And the Air Force doesn't have to approve promoting E-1s and E-2s to CAP SSgt? That's odd. I hope National is not handling the NCO program the same way they handled the CSU.

More experience, perhaps, but not necessarily more training. There's a lot that goes into officer training once someone completed ROTC, OCS, ODS, what have you from any branch. It really depends on each individual person. But the military is much more rigorous when it comes to identifying their training criteria. There will always be stuff officers know that enlisted members don't, and there will always be stuff that enlisted members know but officers don't know jack about, even when someone thinks they should (and probably should).

But I agree with the basis of your point---Where are new members starting off, and where does their training take them? Officers and NCOs have different roles and require different training. Certain backgrounds don't necessarily make you eligible to become an officer nor NCO. CAP tends to be very laid back in a lot of regards, especially in training. That's the burden of being a low-cost volunteer membership organization. On one hand you get some lower quality results than what you would expect of active duty, but on the other hand, we can beef up the volunteer numbers and spread the workload much farther out because we don't require a strict, structured organization of very specific roles and job descriptions in every area we operate.

There are a lot of loose ends that allow us to be much more flexible. It can be a good or bad thing. The issue we have with making improvements is that we need to be cautious so we don't limit ourselves to a smaller number of volunteers while at the same time knowing we are building up higher quality. The fact that we don't have contracts means we can't dictate everything and go with the "we don't care who we please and who we piss off at times" retention program. We need to tread carefully in our retention program because we have the risk of someone walking away. We can say "let them walk" for a while...until you're out of members.

Is there a role for CAP NCOs? I believe there is. But I think it would require a major restructuring of CAP and the training programs across the board. It takes a long time to get these changes implemented and make them work, all while making sure the people affected understand those changes and don't run off because they think NHQ is just "messing things up as always," which I don't agree is the case. NHQ tries. But it's very hard to satisfy everyone and still be most efficient.

[lordmonar]

A lot of this points to my personal idea (that is, it is not a goal or task for the NCO committee) about changing the way people join CAP.

If I were god for a day.....

A person off the street with no military expiernce, no advanced degree, no advanced skills, would join up an Airman Basic.
Level I and six months in.....they get promoted to Amn.
10 months TIG and an Apprentice  rating (new name for tech rating) in a specialty tract they can be promoted to A1C.
20 months TIG and 36 months time in service they can be promoted to SrA.

A person coming into CAP with advanced degrees, skills, etc that would normally be associated with officer ranks would follow the same promotion scheme except they would wear Flight Officer Stripes. 

Join as a Basic Flight Officer
Six Months and Level I....Flight Officer
10 months TOG and an Apprentice rating.....Flight Officer First Class
20 months TIG and 36 Time in service they would be Senior Flight Officer.

At the the three year mark.  SrA and SFOs with a degree (say an Associates or 60 hours of college credit) could opt to go to the Officer Basic Course (sort of like an RSC type course) and then at the four year mark they can be promoted to 2d Lt.

The SrA with out degrees can go to the NCO basic course (a week long RSC type course) and at the four year mark they can be promoted to SSgt.

Both officer and NCO promotions from that point of will be driven by PD progression and performance of duties at appropriate levels of responsibilities.    That is no one get promoted beyond capt with having performed staff or command duties outside of the squadron.  Same story with the NCOs.

Those people who were SFOs but do not have degrees (say a pilot who does not have a degree) they can promote up the chain as well as Chief Flight Officers (CFO-1, CFO-2, CFO-3)

That's my idea of how things should be.   

Once again....this is not the official policy/goal/stance of CAP or the NCO committee.....just my own little pipe dream.

[Storm Chaser]

Your personal idea actually makes more sense than some of the aspects of the official NCO program.

[kwe1009]

A lot of this points to my personal idea (that is, it is not a goal or task for the NCO committee) about changing the way people join CAP.

If I were god for a day.....

A person off the street with no military expiernce, no advanced degree, no advanced skills, would join up an Airman Basic.
Level I and six months in.....they get promoted to Amn.
10 months TIG and an Apprentice  rating (new name for tech rating) in a specialty tract they can be promoted to A1C.
20 months TIG and 36 months time in service they can be promoted to SrA.

A person coming into CAP with advanced degrees, skills, etc that would normally be associated with officer ranks would follow the same promotion scheme except they would wear Flight Officer Stripes. 

Join as a Basic Flight Officer
Six Months and Level I....Flight Officer
10 months TOG and an Apprentice rating.....Flight Officer First Class
20 months TIG and 36 Time in service they would be Senior Flight Officer.

At the the three year mark.  SrA and SFOs with a degree (say an Associates or 60 hours of college credit) could opt to go to the Officer Basic Course (sort of like an RSC type course) and then at the four year mark they can be promoted to 2d Lt.

The SrA with out degrees can go to the NCO basic course (a week long RSC type course) and at the four year mark they can be promoted to SSgt.

Both officer and NCO promotions from that point of will be driven by PD progression and performance of duties at appropriate levels of responsibilities.    That is no one get promoted beyond capt with having performed staff or command duties outside of the squadron.  Same story with the NCOs.

Those people who were SFOs but do not have degrees (say a pilot who does not have a degree) they can promote up the chain as well as Chief Flight Officers (CFO-1, CFO-2, CFO-3)

That's my idea of how things should be.   

Once again....this is not the official policy/goal/stance of CAP or the NCO committee.....just my own little pipe dream.

Definitely a pipe dream but it is a great dream!  I think this would be a great approach and honestly could be implemented pretty easily.  It would recognize those with military experience while not putting those with no experience above them as the current system does.

[lordmonar]

Your personal idea actually makes more sense than some of the aspects of the official NCO program.

That's the problem with leadership by committee vs leadership by decree.

The NCO committee can only do things that affect NCOs.   We can't make direct changes to the officer system.  We can't make changes to the PD system that affects officers.

We can develop and NCO corps that positions CAP to be able to make those changes to the other programs.....if we can get them to see the wisdom of them.

Which is the frustration I have here on CAPTALK where you all complain about how slow we are getting this thing rolling and how come it seems to be only going half way.

There are a lot of people in CAP and they all have good ideas about how things are supposed to be.   And the are all good ideas.   It is no harm no foul.   It is just slow.

First we got to come up with the vision and direction.   Then the actual ideas, work out the bugs, then convince 75.32 other CAP members (who either don't have any idea what we are talking about, or see it as a cut into their territory, or just don't like change) that what we want to do is a good idea.   We got to do all this with out torking off the USAF, or alienating the officer corps (when we start talking about those Lt Cols who never did anything outside of their squadron.) or riling the rank and file with a "you pulled the rug out from under our feet" (a.k.a. the changes to officer promotions Level V for Lt Col).

And if you even suggest that you are even thinking about making degrees required for promotion.......make sure you got your fire proof britches on!

[Storm Chaser]

Your personal idea actually makes more sense than some of the aspects of the official NCO program.

That's the problem with leadership by committee vs leadership by decree.

The NCO committee can only do things that affect NCOs.   We can't make direct changes to the officer system.  We can't make changes to the PD system that affects officers.

We can develop and NCO corps that positions CAP to be able to make those changes to the other programs.....if we can get them to see the wisdom of them.

Which is the frustration I have here on CAPTALK where you all complain about how slow we are getting this thing rolling and how come it seems to be only going half way.

There are a lot of people in CAP and they all have good ideas about how things are supposed to be.   And the are all good ideas.   It is no harm no foul.   It is just slow.

First we got to come up with the vision and direction.   Then the actual ideas, work out the bugs, then convince 75.32 other CAP members (who either don't have any idea what we are talking about, or see it as a cut into their territory, or just don't like change) that what we want to do is a good idea.   We got to do all this with out torking off the USAF, or alienating the officer corps (when we start talking about those Lt Cols who never did anything outside of their squadron.) or riling the rank and file with a "you pulled the rug out from under our feet" (a.k.a. the changes to officer promotions Level V for Lt Col).

And if you even suggest that you are even thinking about making degrees required for promotion.......make sure you got your fire proof britches on!

The thing is unless there is a clear direction from the National Commander and all those involved in making decisions, there's not much the NCO Committee, or any committee for that matter, can do. Maybe Maj Gen Carr shared this vision, but after two years in the works, I'm not convinced the current National leadership does.

[FW]

The thing is unless there is a clear direction from the National Commander and all those involved in making decisions, there's not much the NCO Committee, or any committee for that matter, can do. Maybe Maj Gen Carr shared this vision, but after two years in the works, I'm not convinced the current National leadership does.

I think you are correct on this.  I don't remember seeing this in the current strategic plan nor have I heard of anything recent (other than here on CT) about progress on the program.  Like so many other initiatives, (anyone remember OE2), the NCO program evolution may have ended up in no man's land.

[PHall]

The thing is unless there is a clear direction from the National Commander and all those involved in making decisions, there's not much the NCO Committee, or any committee for that matter, can do. Maybe Maj Gen Carr shared this vision, but after two years in the works, I'm not convinced the current National leadership does.

I think you are correct on this.  I don't remember seeing this in the current strategic plan nor have I heard of anything recent (other than here on CT) about progress on the program.  Like so many other initiatives, (anyone remember OE2), the NCO program evolution may have ended up in no man's land.

I do believe I did say in the past, on this board, that the formal NCO program will go away in about 2 years due to lack of interest from above.
This was very much the previous National Commander's baby. The current National Commander has other concerns.

[JeffDG]

The thing is unless there is a clear direction from the National Commander and all those involved in making decisions, there's not much the NCO Committee, or any committee for that matter, can do. Maybe Maj Gen Carr shared this vision, but after two years in the works, I'm not convinced the current National leadership does.

I think you are correct on this.  I don't remember seeing this in the current strategic plan nor have I heard of anything recent (other than here on CT) about progress on the program.  Like so many other initiatives, (anyone remember OE2), the NCO program evolution may have ended up in no man's land.

I do believe I did say in the past, on this board, that the formal NCO program will go away in about 2 years due to lack of interest from above.
This was very much the previous National Commander's baby. The current National Commander has other concerns.

I believe I have chimed in with a similar opinion as well.  My thoughts are drawn to the fact that it was released half-baked, with required duty positions and no actual duties for those positions, as a midnight reg-drop just before the change of command.  It was done half-way because the outgoing CC didn't thing the incoming CC would do it at all, and that's all they had ready for him to sign off on.

That's 100% speculation on my part, but it fits the available evidence.