Paper: Structural Change, etc

[JohnKachenmeister]

John:

We are planning a comprehensive paper, and unabashedly stealing ideas from all of you.

You have proposed a plan which was first proposed by ZigZag911.  Please consider the alternative plan I proposed, in which:

CAP remains an "Officer" force, but inreases the educational requirements for commissioned grade.

Most CAP officers will wear Flight Officer rank.

NCO's from the military will retain the option of staying at NCO rank.

"Soccer Mom" members will remain enlisted, with minimal requirements.  They will wear rank that is similar to AF rank, but with our triagle-prop design instead of a star.  Their rank progression will top out at SrA.

The program calls for selection of officer candidates at a wing board, and an OTS program which includes SLS.

Your comments would be appreciated.

[JohnKachenmeister]

John:

Sorry, I forgot...

A more detailed version of my rank proposal is at "Clarification of Officer Ranks in the New CAP" Page 1, near the bottom.

[Dragoon]

My big concern is:

I think the key issue that needs to be resolved with an "Officer force" is what do you do when that person isn't serving in an Officer billet of the appropriate grade.

As long as I can be a Lt Col, regardless of how I earned it, and only serve as a squadron asst transportation officer (basically changing oil in the van), then my rank is pretty worthless.

And if you separate "flight officer work" from " commissioned officer work,"  does that that means you shut down a unit if there aren't adequate officers to fill the slots (You sure as hell aren't going to tell me I can't get a commission because of my lack of a degree you sure as hell aren't going to make me do the job anyway and not get the bars!)

Unless you can solve this kind of stuff, our grade cannot easily be tied to levels of responsibility or authority, the key enablers of a workable military grade system.    

Our grade would remain an honorarium, basically an award you wear on your shoulders instead of over your left pocket.  And in that case, let's just give everyone a general's star for each level of the program....

[Dragoon]

One last thing - kind of the summation - what does grade get us as an organization?  And no, I don't think "it makes us more like USAF" is good enough.  At least of third of USAF doesn't wear grade.

If we figure out why we need grade, and what we expect it to do, it will be easier to invent the right system.

Some cynics (including my dad, an Army officer when I was a cadet) believe that CAP grade exits primarily to bribe members to join so they can be "military officers."  I have been told, but cannot confirm, that the reason everyone in the Commemorative Air Force is a Colonel is a direct shot at CAP's grade system.

I think grade CAN be valuable - as both an incentive to train AND an incentive to take the "tough jobs" - if it's worked correctly.  Really low on my totem pole of priorities is making "feel good Lt Col's" who don't do Lt Col work.  Because we truly need more dedicated land talented leaders and staffers above the squadron level.

[Hawk200]

You said "there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers." Ok, that's fine. Join CAP and contribute your skills, but as an enlisted member. I agree, not everyone is going to have the time nor inclination to be an officer. As far as CAP is concerned, officers should be our leaders. The best way to avoid staying top heavy is to promote people to earned grades (enlisted and warrant/flight officer) based on training and skills. Then *temporarily* promote to an appropriate officer grade, if they meet training and any other requirements, when assigned as a unit commander or deputy. Even Dwight D Eisenhower was only a permanent Lt Col when he was given the temorary grade of General during WWII. There's precedent. Give former unit commanders some other bling to hang on the uniform for serving. They already get the Command Service Ribbon, is that not enough recognition? It is for me. I'd be ok with stepping back down into my permanent earned grade after serving as a unit commander.

This kinda changes the game for us. It makes the rewards (officer grade) not only commensurate with level of participation, skills and training but also responsibility. Up until the 1970's, CAPM 20-1 had officer grade allocation tables for units which stipulated maximum grades for each position held in the unit. Seniors still had to complete Level 1-5, but could not promote unless they were filling a billet appropriate for the officer grade they wanted to promote to. The officer grade allocation tables were done away with to improve retention and because people would simply "game" the system and step into a position with a higher maximum grade allocation to get promoted for the minimum time, then step down and keep the grade.

This would return us to that concept, albeit only for command positions, but make the officer grade temporary to avoid the "gamesmanship". So, instead of making officer grade the reward, let's come up with *other* ways of rewarding achievement and contribution.  Use of enlisted and warrant grades would allow us to still use promotions as a reward, but restrict officer grade to commanders. Would it not be just as rewarding to promote from Airman (E-1) to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) or Warrant Officer (WO-1) to Chief Warrant Officer (WO-5)? Do we all have to be Lt Col's?

My primary concern is the "yo-yo" effect. If someone gets a rank through position, then loses it when done, that's what you end up with. Yes, I know the CG Aux does it. If CAP folded for some reason, I would end up there. But going in I would know that, and wouldn't have any issue with it. They do have their past officer device, and it seems to be effective with them.

How many people will join up if they know they only have the improbable potential of making those higher grades? I don't know many.

Another problem with reducing grade is that you would have people taking issue with making level 4, meeting the same requirements as someone serving in a LtCol position, but not being eligible for the same grade as the person that's slotted as one. Can you honestly tell me that it would be equitable? Personally, I think that if someone earns something, they should get it. It shouldn't be conditional.

On that note, you may get people that choose not to advance in Professional Development for those reasons. They would simply say, "What's the point in that stuff? I'm never going to be a major or lieutenant colonel anyway." How would you answer that?

What about people that tend to literally serve in one of those slots til they die? It will happen. People will get those and find waivers, or just completely ignore directives to set a term limit.

A minor issue, but how many pieces of rank insignia do you want to keep lying around? This week I'm a LtCol, next week I'm a 1Lt. That would annoy me.

All the above are issues that will be brought up. If you can show me reasonable logical argument to the above issues, I may buy off on what you present.  You may feel that you don't have to convince me, and you would be right. But you will have to convince someone.

All in all, I have serious doubts that anyone at National is going to sign off on "positional" grade. I doubt that anyone would have any issue with improving training. We raise standards, and apply them. Simple enough to do with the current system. Getting new tires is one thing, re-inventing the wheel is another.

BTW, I guess I have a reputation for being overly blunt. If it seems like I'm being venomous, I do apologize. I'm simply posting an opposing point of view, and I appreciate when others bring their views in as well. Please, don't take it personally, it's not intended as such.

[Dragoon]

How many people will join up if they know they only have the improbable potential of making those higher grades? I don't know many.

Hawk it's a good point that recruiting would suffer.  On the other hand, the people we get would be work focused, rather than rank focused.  This might be good for us.  But we WILL lose members if we raise the standards, either by adding training requirements that not everyone can pass, or requiring folks to actually do tough jobs.   

Another problem with reducing grade is that you would have people taking issue with making level 4, meeting the same requirements as someone serving in a LtCol position, but not being eligible for the same grade as the person that's slotted as one. Can you honestly tell me that it would be equitable? Personally, I think that if someone earns something, they should get it. It shouldn't be conditional..

If rank is an award (like a Commander's Commendation), you're absolutely right.  You earn it, you keep it.  But if rank reflects your job (like an ES qualification), you use it or you lose it.

There is equity - it's sweat equity.  Do the job and wear the rank.  If I want to rest on your my laurels and contribute at a lower level, then I would have to accept the fact that others now outrank me. I think they deserve to - as they're the ones leading, and I no longer am.

Of course, I could still strut my stuff at a Banquet.  With the appropriate past officer badge.

On that note, you may get people that choose not to advance in Professional Development for those reasons. They would simply say, "What's the point in that stuff? I'm never going to be a major or lieutenant colonel anyway." How would you answer that? .

Simple.  Each level of the PD program would be designed to prepare you for that rank.  If you never plan on being a Lt Col or doing a Lt Col job, there would be no reason to take level 5.  In today's military, not everyone makes it to the War College.  They don't need to.  If all you're going to do is work in a squadron, Level II should be all you need.

What about people that tend to literally serve in one of those slots til they die? It will happen. People will get those and find waivers, or just completely ignore directives to set a term limit.

It would be up to the boss.  If you had a guy working for you in a Captain's job, and he was doing great work, why replace him?  But if he wasn't peforming, you'd now have the option of giving his bars to someone else.  That might just motivate folks to do a good job.  Right now, there's very little penalty for doing a poor job at Wing, since there normally aren't a bunch of folks hungry for your job.  A little competition might help improve performance.

A minor issue, but how many pieces of rank insignia do you want to keep lying around? This week I'm a LtCol, next week I'm a 1Lt. That would annoy me.

I think that's a very valid point (especialy buying from Vanguard).  Hopefully, folks wouldn't be changing jobs every week.  I hope we'd use a single kind of pin on insignia that could be worn on all uniforms, to limit the cost.

All the above are issues that will be brought up. If you can show me reasonable logical argument to the above issues, I may buy off on what you present.  You may feel that you don't have to convince me, and you would be right. But you will have to convince someone.

All in all, I have serious doubts that anyone at National is going to sign off on "positional" grade. I doubt that anyone would have any issue with improving training. We raise standards, and apply them. Simple enough to do with the current system. Getting new tires is one thing, re-inventing the wheel is another

BTW, I guess I have a reputation for being overly blunt. If it seems like I'm being venomous, I do apologize. I'm simply posting an opposing point of view, and I appreciate when others bring their views in as well. Please, don't take it personally, it's not intended as such.

You've raised some very valid points.  No venom at all.

I don't think this would every pass if subject to a vote. Simply because CAP was built on "join up and become an officer in 6 months with very little effort.  And if you if you can pass one correspondence course and hang around a couple of years, you'll be a major in no time!"  Lots of members will circle the wagons to protect their right to " be an officer" without actually having any responsibility.  And THAT is what truly seperates us from USAF.

The only way this would work would be for a truly top down approach.  And, as folks have pointed out in this thread, the current NB/NEC structure doesn't really allow this to occur.

But call me crazy, I believe in a military where everyone salutes the commander.  Not the other way around, as occurs in many squadrons.

And wouldn't it be great if you had 6 folks applying for every wing job because they'd like to actually be officers?  As opposed of taking the one incompetent guy who just doesn't want to back to his squadron?

In the military, Officer's Rank is not an award or a reward.  It's an outward symbol of authority and responsibility.  And you can't give either of those up until you separate from service.  If CAP really wants to be more military, they need some variation on this theme.

[ZigZag911]

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.

There are very few people who could not qualify as Mission Staff Assistant or Mission Radio Operator.

Naturally any proposal would need to pass legal muster, this being thhe Age of Litigation.

I would state again that the purpose is not to compel members to become engaged in ES on an ongoing basis, but rather to ensure that those in leadership roles have at leas some minimal training to apply in a crisis situation.

[JohnKachenmeister]

One last thing - kind of the summation - what does grade get us as an organization?  And no, I don't think "it makes us more like USAF" is good enough.  At least of third of USAF doesn't wear grade.

If we figure out why we need grade, and what we expect it to do, it will be easier to invent the right system.

Some cynics (including my dad, an Army officer when I was a cadet) believe that CAP grade exits primarily to bribe members to join so they can be "military officers."  I have been told, but cannot confirm, that the reason everyone in the Commemorative Air Force is a Colonel is a direct shot at CAP's grade system.

I think grade CAN be valuable - as both an incentive to train AND an incentive to take the "tough jobs" - if it's worked correctly.  Really low on my totem pole of priorities is making "feel good Lt Col's" who don't do Lt Col work.  Because we truly need more dedicated land talented leaders and staffers above the squadron level.

Dragoon:

The CAF's "Colonel" titles harks back to when they were called the "Confederate Air Force" and everybody was a "Confederate Colonel."  Admittedly, it loses something once they allowed political correctness to dictate what they are called.

I say bust them all to private.

[jayleswo]

Ok John, you got it. Posted my edited version of your proposal back over in the Clarification of Officer Ranks in the New CAP topic.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander PCR-CA-151

[Hawk200]

Hawk it's a good point that recruiting would suffer.  On the other hand, the people we get would be work focused, rather than rank focused.  This might be good for us.  But we WILL lose members if we raise the standards, either by adding training requirements that not everyone can pass, or requiring folks to actually do tough jobs. 

Not sure I totally agree to "work focused" rather than "rank focused". As for standards, it would be fool hardy to enact a system to deny people advancements (which a proposal of position based rank is). I'm certainly not looking to have people doing "tough" jobs, just more moderately challenging.

There was a commercial in the seventies: "Long hours, low pay, difficult language, join the Peace Corps." They had to turn people away in droves. People actually seek out challenges, lets accomodate them.

There is equity - it's sweat equity.  Do the job and wear the rank.  If I want to rest on your my laurels and contribute at a lower level, then I would have to accept the fact that others now outrank me. I think they deserve to - as they're the ones leading, and I no longer am.

Even military wise, rank is just as much an indicator of advanced training, as it is authority. How many majors and colonels in the military do you know that haven't completed Squadron Officer School, or another service equivalent?  A retired general may not have a command, but you would be foolish to discount his past accomplishments.

Simple.  Each level of the PD program would be designed to prepare you for that rank.  If you never plan on being a Lt Col or doing a Lt Col job, there would be no reason to take level 5.  In today's military, not everyone makes it to the War College.  They don't need to.  If all you're going to do is work in a squadron, Level II should be all you need.

I have major hesitations on a development program that has a lot of emphasis on "You don't need to take it, because you probably won't need it." Some folks may be turned off by this. I don't need it, but I'm going to attempt to get my Level 5 in the PD program anyway. Will we discourage people that want to do that? Or will we just not permit them too? I want to move up. Even National has seen that. A few years ago, they were considering a Level 6. Seems like some people like continuing challenges.

It would be up to the boss.  If you had a guy working for you in a Captain's job, and he was doing great work, why replace him?  But if he wasn't peforming, you'd now have the option of giving his bars to someone else.  That might just motivate folks to do a good job.  Right now, there's very little penalty for doing a poor job at Wing, since there normally aren't a bunch of folks hungry for your job.  A little competition might help improve performance.

You didn't answer the question. If that job never becomes available to someone else, because the boss is satisfied, it is still denying someone an opportunity to advance. And not unreasonably, what if someone that wants to advance is actually better than the person holding it? By your reasoning, noone would ever know.

As far as poor jobs at wing level, I've seen that at every wing I've ever wing I've been in. That is an issue that should be dealt with, not included to justify a permanent incumbent program.

I think that's a very valid point (especialy buying from Vanguard).  Hopefully, folks wouldn't be changing jobs every week.  I hope we'd use a single kind of pin on insignia that could be worn on all uniforms, to limit the cost.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people would change jobs from week to week, more like someone finishing out a year or two tour as a LtCol, and going back to a 1Lt position. But it would still be annoying. If position based ranks would include retaining a higher rank after a job well done, I would probably be a little more open to the idea.

You've raised some very valid points.  No venom at all.

I appreciate hearing that. My best friend and I have had some knock-down, drag-out debates on some things, but we're still best friends. And I personally think that those debates allow us to be better friends because we understand the reasoning behind each others viewpoints.

A lot of folks take my challenges personally, but they are rarely intended that way. I just have no desire to create enemies, that's pointless. I think that there are a lot of people here that I could easily call "friend" if I knew them in some other manner than just a handle on a forum. That's where people enrich your own life. As long as no one calls me "crazy", "insane", "psychotic" or "stupid", I rarely take anything personally.

I don't think this would every pass if subject to a vote. Simply because CAP was built on "join up and become an officer in 6 months with very little effort.  And if you if you can pass one correspondence course and hang around a couple of years, you'll be a major in no time!"  Lots of members will circle the wagons to protect their right to " be an officer" without actually having any responsibility.  And THAT is what truly seperates us from USAF.

I see that point. And maybe I am crazy, but I think I should have more challenges as a CAP officer. We challenge our cadets on a weekly basis, showing them that their standards increase. I think it may appear disingenuous for us not to follow suit. (A lot of cadets may not now what "disingenuous" means but I'm sure they are familiar with the concept behind it)

I think that there are a few people that would take any new training to stay abreast to the current officer standards. They might do it happily, or begrudgingly, but they would do it. Either way, you see people improving themselves.

The only way this would work would be for a truly top down approach.  And, as folks have pointed out in this thread, the current NB/NEC structure doesn't really allow this to occur.

Not much I can really say about this, other than I agree. Just didn't want you to think I ignored it. It's a legitimate issue.

But call me crazy, I believe in a military where everyone salutes the commander.  Not the other way around, as occurs in many squadrons.

I outrank my commander, and he makes a point of saluting me, especially when cadets are present. He's setting an example for them, and it would be unprofessional of me to set a poor example. Even when it's a little wierd when the boss salutes you. Which is one reason why I'm going to do a serious push on his promotion when it's time, and a good personnel officer wouldn't do any less.

And wouldn't it be great if you had 6 folks applying for every wing job because they'd like to actually be officers?  As opposed of taking the one incompetent guy who just doesn't want to back to his squadron?

It would be great to have the competition, then hopefully you get the best and brightest. I think there should be posted job announcements for wing positions, and there should be "telecommuting" options for a lot of them. There's little reason I should have to drive to wing to do personnel actions when I can do it via email and phone call.

As far the guy that doesn't want to go back to his squadron, that's an obvious issue. If he really wants to be a CAP member, he could find another unit. In one wing, I drove 26 miles to my squadron when there was one 4 miles up the road. Why? Because the one I drove to was the one I started with. It was only later that I moved, but still commuted to that unit. I don't see why someone couldn't drive a few miles, if they really wanted to be in. And I was considering driving almost 40 miles to a unit, but one happened to form locally.

In the military, Officer's Rank is not an award or a reward.  It's an outward symbol of authority and responsibility.  And you can't give either of those up until you separate from service.  If CAP really wants to be more military, they need some variation on this theme.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I partially disagree with the "not an award" concept. As I said above, the higher rank indicates training, experience, position and authority. In this case, you can't just drop the parts you don't want to use if you want CAP officers to parallel the military. You can't promote in the military without required training, we should look at that.

As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

It's one thing to create a uniform item with precedent in history. A uniform is supposed to be a fairly static concept (yes, I do know that there have been loads of changes lately). Military structure and leadership isn't. It tends to move forward, we should too.

[Hawk200]

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.

There are very few people who could not qualify as Mission Staff Assistant or Mission Radio Operator.

Naturally any proposal would need to pass legal muster, this being thhe Age of Litigation.

I would state again that the purpose is not to compel members to become engaged in ES on an ongoing basis, but rather to ensure that those in leadership roles have at leas some minimal training to apply in a crisis situation.

I still see it as people being compelled to do something. ES is not the be-all, end-all qualification of CAP. There are people in higher levels of CAP with no ES experience, and I don't think they should be required to do something that is of no interest or no use to them.

Airborne qualification is not mandatory for all personnel in the Army, but there are people that believe it should be. Just an example. And yes, there are people that do legimately believe that. Most of them seem to have such qualification.

[ZigZag911]

I still see it as people being compelled to do something. ES is not the be-all, end-all qualification of CAP. There are people in higher levels of CAP with no ES experience, and I don't think they should be required to do something that is of no interest or no use to them.

Airborne qualification is not mandatory for all personnel in the Army, but there are people that believe it should be. Just an example. And yes, there are people that do legimately believe that. Most of them seem to have such qualification.

Some see CPPT as needlessly compulsory, or uniform regulations, or the chain of command....where does it stop?

Your use of the airborne analogy is excellent....jumping out of perfectly functioning  aircraft would be properly described as an "advanced combat skill".

Firing a weapon, cleaning a weapon, finding cover & concealment all could well be described as 'basic combat skills'...and if I'm not mistaken EVERYONE in the military (with the exception of chaplains) gets this training.

Serving as an Incident Commander, mission pilot/observer, ground team leader or member -- these are certainly "advanced ES skills", and I completely agree that it would be unreasonable to expect all members to pursue this training.

However, learning the fundamentals of ES procedures & rules, learning how to operate a radio or perform mission related clerical functions, strike me as 'basic ES skills', which ought to be required of all senior leaders, and, in my opinion, all cadet officers.

Part of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.

[Hawk200]

Some see CPPT as needlessly compulsory, or uniform regulations, or the chain of command....where does it stop?

Anyone that considers CPPT as "needlessly compulsory" doesn't need to be around our program. Period. I will not debate that.

Uniformity is not only a military thing. I have to wear a uniform at work, and it doesn't remotely look like military. And there are people that have been sent home for not shaving.

Chain of command is how we run business, it's integral to our structure, ES is not.

Serving as an Incident Commander, mission pilot/observer, ground team leader or member -- these are certainly "advanced ES skills", and I completely agree that it would be unreasonable to expect all members to pursue this training.

However, learning the fundamentals of ES procedures & rules, learning how to operate a radio or perform mission related clerical functions, strike me as 'basic ES skills', which ought to be required of all senior leaders, and, in my opinion, all cadet officers.

I have problems with "ought to be required". A military base (or post, or air station) commander doesn't necessarily know how to fix an airplane, run a telephone line, or install a toilet. I don't see how a CAP wing commander should be any different.

Part of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.

I agree to a point. If you say "ES" and your wing CC gives you a blank look, yes there's a problem. But I don't think he needs to know how to run a radio. For that matter, not everyone needs to.

It's another example of the ES snobbery that tends to run rampant in CAP. AE doesn't get done in a lot of units because they're ES based. Or you have cadets that got their first stripe a year and a half ago because they had to have it to be on a ground team, and haven't promoted since.

There are three missions to our organization. We don't need each single member qualified in everything. The idea that everyone should have intimate ES knowledge isn't fitting. It doesn't provide something useful to everyone. And if there is a good number of people that it isn't useful to, it's elitist.

[jayleswo]

I am reading broad consensus that we need a more professional, better trained and indoctrinated CAP officer corps... while at the same time read concerns expressed about setting standards and requirements. How do you raise overall standards without some entry level standards?

We simply do not have the kind of training material and curriculum and resources needed to turn someone starting at zero into a leader and an officer. And, even if we did, who would have the time to go through all of it? That's a reason for the college degree. However, if we did institute an Officer Training School and enhanced officer training, that's great. It doesn't sound like the people we select to be unit commanders would be required to go to it. You just go if you want to be an officer. So we end up with potentially under-trained members leading units-same as today. Today, all you need to be a squadron commander is Level I+CPPT and UCC for a grand total of maybe 20 hours of training. Out of that, maybe 60 minutes on Leadership. We need something better.

Problem: So, under the new plan with a beefed up OTS, what about all the people left out who do not have the time, nor the inclination to be officers? Solution: that's where enlisted (non-NCO grades) and warrant/flight officer grades come in.

I can see that the idea of positional grade isn't going over well. I'll live  .Maybe using military grade is the hang-up with this idea, but CAP Officer grade would signify nothing more than temporarily granted authority which is given up once you have stepped down from command. Obviously a hard concept to grasp, or perhaps to agree with?  Just to be clear, I am a CAP Lt Col today with 27 years in, hundreds of hours on missions, CAP Pilot, former cadet, etc. and would be fine with reverting to my permanent "earned" grade once my tour as unit commander is up in 3 years. Why, because whatever my "permanent" grade is, I've earned it, and have pride in that accomplishment. Under the positional grade system, I haven't "earned" that grade - it's given to me temporarily while I am a commander. When I am done, I give it back. Very different from today and maybe that's why people don't like it.

So, bottom line is: either we raise standards or we don't. If we don't, we have the status quo that nobody in particular seems happy with.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[ZigZag911]

Part of CAP's problem is higher echelon commanders (group, wing CC & above) who only know their own narrow area of personal interest.

I agree to a point. If you say "ES" and your wing CC gives you a blank look, yes there's a problem. But I don't think he needs to know how to run a radio. For that matter, not everyone needs to.

It's another example of the ES snobbery that tends to run rampant in CAP. AE doesn't get done in a lot of units because they're ES based. Or you have cadets that got their first stripe a year and a half ago because they had to have it to be on a ground team, and haven't promoted since.

There are three missions to our organization. We don't need each single member qualified in everything. The idea that everyone should have intimate ES knowledge isn't fitting. It doesn't provide something useful to everyone. And if there is a good number of people that it isn't useful to, it's elitist.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right, there are indeed three missions, and I strongly feel that those in command (at least wing & group CCs to start, preferably squadron CCs as well) need a familiarity with all three programs....which, to my mind, means a minimal ES qualification.

I don't expect everyone to chase ELTs or run to SAREXes  all over the wing....but it is part of our mission, we are at war, and, frankly, I feel every senior member and cadet officer should be available in time of urgent necessity (another Katrina or 9/11).

I have equally sparse patience with those who refuse to contribute in any way to the cadet program (not everyone is going to be an encampment TAC officer or squadron DCC....but everyone should be willing to instruct the cadets in the home unit on one's specialty)....as well as with those who have no interest in AE.

I'll let you have the last word on this if you wish, but I think you & I are going to have to disagree on this one!

[Hawk200]

You are absolutely right, there are indeed three missions, and I strongly feel that those in command (at least wing & group CCs to start, preferably squadron CCs as well) need a familiarity with all three programs....which, to my mind, means a minimal ES qualification.

I don't expect everyone to chase ELTs or run to SAREXes  all over the wing....but it is part of our mission, we are at war, and, frankly, I feel every senior member and cadet officer should be available in time of urgent necessity (another Katrina or 9/11).

I have equally sparse patience with those who refuse to contribute in any way to the cadet program (not everyone is going to be an encampment TAC officer or squadron DCC....but everyone should be willing to instruct the cadets in the home unit on one's specialty)....as well as with those who have no interest in AE.

I'll let you have the last word on this if you wish, but I think you & I are going to have to disagree on this one!

I don't really see this as an argument, or having the last word. I'm just not quite getting your reasoning for everyone to be ES qualified. You could run a couple of hours "familiarization" of ES, I think it would actually be a good idea. There are many people in CAP that really have no idea what "Emergency Services" means.

Instructing in ones specialty I don't see as necessarily being "involved" in the cadet program, I see it more as interacting with my fellow members. Anyone that thinks that cadets aren't worth talking to (and I have run into this too) is being needlessly discriminatory, and is obviously not a team player.

I think the idea is actually something that we should look into as part of our programs. At least for cadet and composite units, anyway. Knowledge is one thing you can share without losing anything. Not sharing it is very stingy.

[Dragoon]

You didn't answer the question. If that job never becomes available to someone else, because the boss is satisfied, it is still denying someone an opportunity to advance. And not unreasonably, what if someone that wants to advance is actually better than the person holding it? By your reasoning, noone would ever know.

Hey, that's how it works in the real world.  If the big boss is happy with someone's performance, he's not going to kick him out just so you "have an opportunity to advance."  You wanna advance - convince the boss that you'd be better.  That's right - perform.  Be so good at what you do that the boss realizes you can help him out in a position of greater responsbility, and maybe it's time to let the incumbent move on to some other opportunity.

On the other hand, if you are the boss, it would be nice to be able to have 3 hungry talented guys after your key staff slots.  It would certainly help keep the incumbent on his toes.

As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

There's also no modern U.S. military precedent from moving down from Group Command to an assistant squadron staff officer in the same chain of command - and we do it all the time in CAP! 

And that's the heart of the problem - if I can get all the benefits of advanced grade without actually having the responsiblities, why should I volunteer for the tough jobs?

And we need more competent guys in the tough jobs.

Military grade is a symbol of authority and responsibility.  The military will give folks the best training they can for the job, but they can (and do) waiver all kinds of training requirements when things get tough.  The key is to put the best guy in the command slot and make him the highest ranking guy in the unit, so that he has the outward symbol of authority to back up his position. 

If we really want to do it the way the big boys do, we can't ignore that.  Of course, if we want to "earn" our grade through correspondence courses and skip the whole "responsibility" thing, we're already there! 

[davedove]

What if a system was put in place that combined the current system with positional grade?  You keep the current duty performance structure.  Maintaining the grade from any special promotions would require the member to keep performing that job to keep the grade.  For example, if a member accepted a Group Commander position, if his grade were lower than Major, he would be promoted to Major.  Then, when he stepped down from that assignment, he would revert back to the grade for which he would normally be qualified through duty performance advancement.  For instance if he were 1st Lt. and took the job, he would be made a Major.  When he relinquished that position he would revert back to 1st Lt, unless during this time he had completed the requirements for Captain, in which case he would become a Captain.  Time spent in the special promotion would be counted as time in grade for the duty performance progression.  This would eliminate the "all or nothing" approach of just positional grade.

[Hawk200]

Hey, that's how it works in the real world.  If the big boss is happy with someone's performance, he's not going to kick him out just so you "have an opportunity to advance."  You wanna advance - convince the boss that you'd be better.  That's right - perform.  Be so good at what you do that the boss realizes you can help him out in a position of greater responsbility, and maybe it's time to let the incumbent move on to some other opportunity.

OK, hypothetical situation. Someone, at a squadron, wants to move into a wing staff position that's say, a major position. He's a 1Lt. He is actually better than the incumbent. How does he convince the wing commander that's he's actually better in an honorable manner? By that I mean he doesn't engage in character assination of the incumbent, or blow his own capabilities out of proportion.

On the other hand, if you are the boss, it would be nice to be able to have 3 hungry talented guys after your key staff slots.  It would certainly help keep the incumbent on his toes.

That I will buy. But there is still the issue I mentioned above. Of course, there is always the concern of people that might live three hours from the wing. They can't reasonably dedicate the time. Driving to a meeting an hour away is one thing, three hours to the wing is another. How do we accomodate that?

As far as mirroring the military, there is no precedent in the present uniformed services of "positional rank", at least not as far as I have seen. It may have in the past, but I don't think it holds now.

There's also no modern U.S. military precedent from moving down from Group Command to an assistant squadron staff officer in the same chain of command - and we do it all the time in CAP! 

That I can agree with. Not much I can say otherwise, it's a valid point.

And that's the heart of the problem - if I can get all the benefits of advanced grade without actually having the responsiblities, why should I volunteer for the tough jobs?

And we need more competent guys in the tough jobs.

Military grade is a symbol of authority and responsibility.  The military will give folks the best training they can for the job, but they can (and do) waiver all kinds of training requirements when things get tough.  The key is to put the best guy in the command slot and make him the highest ranking guy in the unit, so that he has the outward symbol of authority to back up his position. 

If we really want to do it the way the big boys do, we can't ignore that.  Of course, if we want to "earn" our grade through correspondence courses and skip the whole "responsibility" thing, we're already there! 

There is one thing that bothers me about this viewpoint. It implies that you are only as good as your current position. Do you think former National commanders should be included in this? They have held the toughest job in CAP. Should their thanks be a reduction in grade? And it doesn't matter how many times you say they should understand, people will still view it that way.

And overall, there is a cap on grade for the most part. It is LtCol. We don't have a bunch of Cols running around. Their are fairly few of them.

Training levels also include some challenge. If it is done by only the most dedicated, you won't have a mass of the higher ranks. Even the training levels require a command or staff position. Is that not enough? Are we going to create an elite cadre of higher ranks that can only be reached by command? Command that not everyone will have an opportunity to perform?

And I do know for a fact that the training levels do inhibit people that don't do it. I knew of one group commander that had been a captain for 14 years. The reason was that he never completed ECI 13. It could have been waivered by then. But it wasn't, and so he remained a captain. He got capped in grade. Seems like the system worked there.

I'm sorry, but no matter what you do, you will create a gatekeeping system, one way or another. There are people that won't be able to move up, most through no fault of their own, just by denying them the opportunity.

There are serious problems with positional grade. It will not be fair. Yes, I know the CG Aux does it, but their people know that going into it. I don't think it's fair to compare.

[Dragoon]

OK, hypothetical situation. Someone, at a squadron, wants to move into a wing staff position that's say, a major position. He's a 1Lt. He is actually better than the incumbent. How does he convince the wing commander that's he's actually better in an honorable manner? By that I mean he doesn't engage in character assination of the incumbent, or blow his own capabilities out of proportion.

Same way you do it in the private sector

1.  Volunteer for a job opening at Wing in your current grade (or, if you're really hungry, a lower grade). 

2.  Start performing.  Do great work. 

3.  When you are noticed, let the chief of staff now that you are interested in a position of greater responsibility should one become available.  If you're good, you'll get one.

That I will buy. But there is still the issue I mentioned above. Of course, there is always the concern of people that might live three hours from the wing. They can't reasonably dedicate the time. Driving to a meeting an hour away is one thing, three hours to the wing is another. How do we accomodate that?

Do we need to accommodate?  Does everyone deserve the right to be Lt Col if they aren't actually able to lead at that level?  Folks in the Guard and Reserve turn down promotions all the time to avoid having to transfer far away.  On the other hand, some folks travel several hundred miles to drill weekends in order to get promoted. 

If we treat grade as "an outward mark of authority and responsibility", then you give it to those who need that - not just as a morale builder.

There is one thing that bothers me about this viewpoint. It implies that you are only as good as your current position. Do you think former National commanders should be included in this? They have held the toughest job in CAP. Should their thanks be a reduction in grade? And it doesn't matter how many times you say they should understand, people will still view it that way.

Well, it implies that your grade represents your current position - you could be much better than that!. But it makes it clear that you owe a salute to the guy in charge, not the guy who used to be in charge but now voluntarily has decided to step down and work for you.  And it means that YOU, as a leader, get the outward sign of the authority and responsibility you hold in your job.

For past officers, I think we could have various way of recognizing them.  For example, allowing members to wear the highest grade ever held on their uniform for social events.  Also, perhaps some ribbons to commemorate former high level staff and commanders.  And having their previous high grade on their ID card.  There are a million ways to respect what someone has DONE, but I'm more concerned with improving the state of the organization by respecting what people are DOING right now.


And yeah, the only way it would work would be if it applied to all levels.  Incidentally, it applies to the National Vice Commander today - step down and take off the star.  Interesting, huh?

And overall, there is a cap on grade for the most part. It is LtCol. We don't have a bunch of Cols running around. Their are fairly few of them..

And THAT is why you always have more folks applying for Wing Commander than for A4/Chief of Logistics. Because you get rank with Wing Commander, and nothing special for being a Wing Staffer.  That's part of the problem - we need to incentivise those other positons.

Training levels also include some challenge. If it is done by only the most dedicated, you won't have a mass of the higher ranks. Even the training levels require a command or staff position. Is that not enough? Are we going to create an elite cadre of higher ranks that can only be reached by command? Command that not everyone will have an opportunity to perform?

We would have to code staff slots as well. Just saying that a "staff position" counts isn't good enough.  It rewards Assistant Squadron AE officers equally with Wing Directors of Operations!  One should be able to gain grade by serving on higher levels staff in critical jobs.

And I do know for a fact that the training levels do inhibit people that don't do it. I knew of one group commander that had been a captain for 14 years. The reason was that he never completed ECI 13. It could have been waivered by then. But it wasn't, and so he remained a captain. He got capped in grade. Seems like the system worked there.

Here's the flip side - he was good enough to have the actual authority of a Lt Col and was doing the job.  And yet he didn't do ECI-13.  Seems to me that ECI-13 wasn't necessary training to be a good Group Commander!

On a serious note, I'd cap grade on a combination of position and education.  A newbie in a 0-5 job shouldn't be an 0-5, any more than fully trained 0-5 in an 0-1 job.  Tie it to both.

I'm sorry, but no matter what you do, you will create a gatekeeping system, one way or another. There are people that won't be able to move up, most through no fault of their own, just by denying them the opportunity..

You just used the term "moving up."  This system would foster "moving up" - moving up from squadron to group to Wing and above as you get better.  This is very different from the current model of "putting on more rank while doing the same job."

As long as we view rank as just another ribbon to earn, we will be fundamentally out of syn ch with USAF.  You pin on the gold oak leaves, you do a major's job.  Period.



A few last comments

By having permanent FO grades that you revert to, we would have a way of recognizing training.  An FO-5 would be recognized as a highly trained CAP officer, regardless of position.

And icompromise approach is to make an officer grade permanent after a few years of successfully serving at that grade (which is how Colonel is handled now).  It would at least motivate folks to truly "move up" but it wouldn't neccesarily motivate them to keep serving at that level afterward.