Quality Versus Desire?

[DogCollar]

CAPCHIRO --thank you very much!

CHAPPIE --thanks for helping me understand better where you are coming from.  I have confronted many a self-anointed "chaplain" in the hospital who will use a patients extreme vulnerability as an opportunity for proselytizing.  There's no excuse for it in CAP.  I wonder if the "chaplains" who aren't willing to go past level one, and legitimate chaplains to begin with?  As I understand it, when you receive a Chaplaincy appointment from NHQ, you have achieved Level two, and therefore should be familiar with the regulations against seeking "converts" and respecting pluralism!  It also strongly puts forward the notion that our "rank" does not equal command!  Also, I'm with you...I have seen chaplains and other senior members that have no business in an AF style uniform.  I think that we both want to see a stronger Chaplain's Corp in CAP!!

Col. Aylsworth--I apologize, sir, for getting in a "snit."  I guess I am just extra sensitive because I'm doing the best that I can at the present, and I honestly wish I had the time to do more service (I still don't want to climb the CAP corporate ladder!!)  It is my hope that I haven't put you are anyone else on the defensive!?

Back to the original question "Quality or Desire?"  It seems to me that everyone has a desire to see greater quality in CAP.  capchiro has pointed out in his last post, it may take many of us YEARS to get to the point where we have the time and training to be the quality leaders that are needed.  In the meantime, you'll get the best that this time constrained individual CAP Chaplain can offer.

[Dragoon]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

[DogCollar]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

Yes, you offer a fair summary.

My opinion is that a test that you can't fail isn't really a test.  For those who want to be promoted should be allowed three opportunities to pass a test in a 12 month period.  However, if said member has taken and failed the test twice, before taking it a third time, the commanding officer of said member should sign off on the third attempt that the member has completed a thorough review of the subject matter, and that both the commanding officer and member desiring promotion realize the consequence of failing a third time is no promotion and no attempt at passing the test can be made for one calendar year.

I think this is fair to the member (allows for test anxiety, mental block, etc...) Fair to the commander who then knows a little bit more about what the member can and cannot handle.  Fair to CAP in that it adds a bit more meat to the bone.

I also think that it is a good idea for those of us who may not want to get promoted to annually sign off that we have reviewed the standards and tasks for the position and rank that we are presently in.  I think this protects CAP and enhances the members internalization of their position.

[lordmonar]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

No.  If you limit a guy from progressing....you also limit his incentive to becoming a better officer.  The skills that a member learns in Level IV can be applied very well at the squadron level.  If we don't offer any bling to go with it...why should he bother to do the training?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Yes...this is a good thing.

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

There is a balance between making a course too easy and one that is too hard.  I think we should make the courses so that the member learns something...that is, it should be meaningful training....but it should not be there simply to weed out the weak, that is make it purposely harder than it needs to be.  But we should have an objective standard for our promotions.  We should make sure that you really have the skills you need for a given rank.  Attendance should not be the only criteria for passing the course.

[ZigZag911]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

Gods! Isn't that one of the signs of the End Times!?

No need to worry unless we get to #3 this weekend!

[ZigZag911]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

A number of folks I talk to wonder why there isn't some end of course project, exercise, evaluation for Level 1, SLS, CLC....even a 'staff duty analysis' paper or open book exam would at least reinforce the material and hold the students to some kind of accountability...this piece could be on line, post-residence piece of class...CAPF 11 submission would qualify individuals to take the exam

[JohnKachenmeister]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.   

[Chappie]

CAPCHIRO --thank you very much!

CHAPPIE --thanks for helping me understand better where you are coming from.  I have confronted many a self-anointed "chaplain" in the hospital who will use a patients extreme vulnerability as an opportunity for proselytizing.  There's no excuse for it in CAP.  I wonder if the "chaplains" who aren't willing to go past level one, and legitimate chaplains to begin with?  As I understand it, when you receive a Chaplaincy appointment from NHQ, you have achieved Level two, and therefore should be familiar with the regulations against seeking "converts" and respecting pluralism!  It also strongly puts forward the notion that our "rank" does not equal command!  Also, I'm with you...I have seen chaplains and other senior members that have no business in an AF style uniform.  I think that we both want to see a stronger Chaplain's Corp in CAP!!

No problem, Bill.  Just wanted you to know that I do appreciate where you are coming from as well.  As for Chaplains coming in at Level 2....there in lies the confustion that many Chaplains experience.  There is a difference between the Levels of training in the Professional Development program and the specialty track. 

When Chaplains receive their appointment, the Technician Rating is given in 221 Specialty Track (that is not Level 2 -- just a partial requirement for the COP).  The 221 "The CAP Chaplain" needs to be completed in order to promote and receive the Senior Rating.  The 221A "Chaplains Helping Chaplains" needs to be completed in order to receive the Master Rating.  These two courses would help the Chaplain get a grasp on things as well --- and unfortunately looking at the VAWG and the CAWG STR's we have a lot of Technicians, few Seniors and fewer Masters.  It is a false assumption to think that just because a Technician rating has been granted, that one has a working knowledge of CAP and the CAP Chaplain Service.  Though I had a lot of pastoral experience and experience in Law Enforcement chaplaincy...there was a lot more to this than I had initially thought.  Thankfully, I had some great mentors along the way that steered me into the PD program and the Specialty Tracks.  Had it not been for them...I would probably been one of those in the 90% group of Chaplains who had not advanced their training beyond Level 1.

Here's a Training Checklist that I developed for the PCR/CAWG Chaplains to follow:

REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLETE LEVELS OF TRAINING I - V

Chaplains are encouraged to follow the Professional Development Program for Senior Members both for the added experience and exposure to the CAP program.  In order to serve as a Group or Wing Chaplain, one must have completed Level 2.  Here is a step-by-step checklist for you to follow.  Just place a date in the line preceding each requirement to record the fulfillment of that requirement.  Be sure to record that date in your CAPF 45b.

Level 2: Technical Training - Certificate of Proficiency (COP)  (Leadership ribbon)

_________ completion of 221 "The CAP Chaplain" (Squadron Leadership School waived) 
_________ completion of AFIADL - 13 "The CAP Senior Officer's Course"

Level 3: Management - Grover Loening Award  (Senior Rating – Bronze Star on Leadership ribbon)

_________ complete COP
_________ completion of 221a "Chaplains Helping Chaplains" (Corporate Learning Course waived)
_________ serve on staff for 1 year
_________ attend 2 National, Wing, or Region Conferences

Level 4: Command and Staff - Paul E. Garber Award   (Master Rating – Silver Star on Leadership ribbon)

_________ complete Level 3
_________ attend 2 Region Chaplain Staff Colleges within 5 years
_________ serve on staff of Squadron Leadership School/Corporate Learning Course or  Wing, Regional,
                   National Conference or prepare and present a SLS or CLC
_________ complete 221a "Chaplains Helping Chaplains"
_________ serve 2 years on staff
_________ make a CAP presentation to a non-CAP group or prepare a aerospace manuscript for publication or earn the Yeager Award

Level 5: Executive - Gill Robb Wilson Award

_________ complete Level 4
_________ serve 3 years on staff 
_________ complete National Staff College or Air Command and Staff College
_________ serve as a staff member of a Regional Staff College or National Staff College or serve a director of an SLS or CLC
_________ conduct a Level I orientation course

The "rank does not equal command" concept is hard for some to understand -- especially if they haven't taken the time to read the 221.  As you know Chaplains at all levels of CAP serve at the expressed desire of the commander.  There was a situation here a few years ago where a Chaplain -- because of his attitude and actions -- lost his squadron assignment (i.e. Commander refused to put him on the PA).  Because of his reputation, no other squadron commanders would take him.  The only way a Chaplain can be 2b'd is if his ecclessiastical endorsement is taken away --- and the grounds for his unacceptability in serving at squadron were not the type that his endorser would take away his endorsement (.i.e. were not unethical, immoral reasons....just lack of CAP common sense and poor judgment...but enough that the Squadron CC couldn't/wouldn't work with him).  So he was assigned to the Wing holding squadron until he woke up and smelled the coffee and figured out that CAP was not the place for him to be...so he didn't renew his membership.  But this was an example of one who did not pursue his training...was content to put on the blue suit/rank on epaulet/cross on chest and strut around. 

And Capchiro...we are definitely on the same page...sing it louder 

[Chappie]

One thought... The "I'm just a volunteer" thing.  That mindset tends to lead to low expectations and mediocrity.

If a member agrees to a duty assignment, job, task or project then they should do it with the same level of attention, skill and commitment as they would anything else of importance. What kills me is people who take a job and then never really do it. When asked about it, the response is "Well, I'm just a volunteer". So, someone else (usually the Commander) has to do the job.

Is that really the kind of program people are interested in being part of? Is that the kind of organization that gains respect from our customers and other agencies we work with? On the face of it, we have some important missions as an organization to fulfill. Is that part of our retention problem? The people that join with high expectations leave because they are not fulfilled? The people that stay are those who are content with mediocrity. And a small core group of people are left with running the unit, then burning out?

I'm all for high standards and expectations, volunteer or not.

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

Col. I respect your desire for high standards and expectations.  I personally am willing to say that CAP will get the very best I've got...2 to 3 hours a week!  I don't expect a promotion, nor will I get bent out of shape if I am not included in the decision making.  If my 2 to 3 hours a week are not sufficient, then I would hope that my unit commander and/or my wing chaplain would take me aside and say we really don't need what you have to offer us.  That's fine.  I'd have a lot of respect for that commander and/or chaplain.  I enjoy my work with my small squadron of cadets and seniors, and so far, they seem to appreciate my being there every week, leading Moral Leadership, encouraging, listening and trying to increase morale.  When I have the time (which isn't often) I work on doing what I need to do to be qualified as a mission chaplain.

I don't desire to climb CAP's corporate/military ladder.  I have no need to wear higher rank insignia...heck, I'll give back my Captain bars if bothers enough people.  Yet, with the little time I have to offer, I will do the very best I can in service to others.  If this makes me a "mediocre slacker"...so be it.

Chaplain, no one would dream of calling you a slacker, since it sounds like you are keeping the commitment that you made.

Gives ZigZag a hearty "amen"  :angel:

[Chappie]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.   

John -- that is why during my career I have pursued all the Levels I-V in the the PD program...attained a Master Rating in the Chaplain, Cadet Programs, and Professional Development training tracks....earned the Yeager Award (and have presented AE lessons at the Squadron...as well as on occasion gave presentations at local service clubs)....have a ES card as well as the Mission Chaplain rating.  It wasn't easy...and took some time...but I feel I am much better prepared for the tasks that come my way.   

[Chappie]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

Gods! Isn't that one of the signs of the End Times!?

Looking through the Scriptures to see .... hmmmmm.... let me do some more research on that and will get back to you

[lordmonar]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

[Chappie]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

Concurs ... from the Chaplain service perspective:  we have some chaplains that serve Senior Squadrons (they also serve as Scanners/Observers) .... we have some chaplains in Composite Squadrons (who serve as GTL/M)...we have some chaplains that serve Cadet Squadrons (active in Cadet Programs).   Not all our Chaplains are ES qualified (though they should if they want to participate in SARX/Missions) -- then there are some who are Mission Chaplain rated.   There are a few Chaplains who have earned the Yeager.   The point is that we all have a working knowledge of the 3-fold mission of CAP...but very few are qualified in all three missions.  It would be great if we all could devote 24/7 to CAP and be ready (qualified for any of the three missions)) when the bell rings...but it is difficult enough many of our members to be qualified in a specialty track.  I have no qualms about the chaplain who serves a Senior Squadron -- has a Scanner rating and no interest to attend Encampment or serve on the staff of a BCS/ATS since he is 80+ years of age.

[Dragoon]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

No.  If you limit a guy from progressing....you also limit his incentive to becoming a better officer.  The skills that a member learns in Level IV can be applied very well at the squadron level.  If we don't offer any bling to go with it...why should he bother to do the training?

I'm not sure it's fair to link "being promoted" with "progressing"

After all, a member does not have to be promoted very far to progress through the PD program.  He can earn all the ribbons for the five levels without getting promoted.  We had a SM do that - all he had to do was get a grade waiver for RSC and NSC attendance.

But you're right in that "getting a ribbon" is not as much of an incentive as "getting a ribbon AND getting new rank insignia"



But here's a different thought - what if Level 3 was rewickered to be entirely about Group level operations, Level 4 about how to be a Wing level director, and Level 5 focused on Levels above Wing?

If so, while the information might be "nice to know" for someone who only works at squadron level their whole life, it shouldn't make a big difference in their effectiveness.  So Level 2 would probably be enough.  (

What this would do is focus our higher level PD resources on folks who have the experience to truly grasp the material, and the need to actually know it.  In the same way that the Army doesn't let E-5 sergeants attend the Sergeant Major's Academy - the information wouldn't be that valuable to them, and it's not worth the resources of the service to support them going.

I recognize that isn't the way PD is set up today (for example, our RSC teaches drill and ceremony and customs and courtesies - things you'd expect a member to get way back in level 1.)  But could we set it up that way?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

[Dragoon]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

[lordmonar]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

Yes and no.  The USAF does not expect you to know anything except your assigned duty.  If they assign you outside of your AFSC they send you to school to get the training you need.  But they don't expect you to know all of your missions.  A fighter wing commander does not know how to run a maintenance group...if he came up from an Ops Group.  If a Fighter Squadron Commander gets shifted over to command a maintenance group...they send him to the basic maintenance officer's course.  If for some reason he can't go....he relies heavily on his Command Chief and Maintenance Staff Officers to get him up to speed.

Now....I do think that we should make everyone do a little of everything as part of our PD.  Require an ES rating at each level of training, require some contact with the CP and internal and external AE programs.  But.....that is a far cray of being qualified to participate in all three missions.  I would say that they should be familiar of all three missions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

Medical supply would be so confusing that putting someone not qualified in there would be a war-stopper.  But why couldn't you be the S-1, S-2, or S-3?  Or for that matter, the commander?  A medical battalion moves the same way any other battalion moves, and the service delivery is done by medical personnel in units.  Once you learn the capability of the units, why couldn't you establish a functional HQ?

[JohnKachenmeister]

The question is, though, why shouldn't you be qualified to do YOUR JOB on a mission?

If your specialty track is Administration, why shouldn't you be qualified to perform admin tasks on a mission?

If your specialty track is Finance, why shouldn't you be qualified to perform mission finance operations?

If your specialty is Logistics, why couldn't you be qualified to do mission supply?

I could go on, but such would be redundant.

[Dragoon]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

Medical supply would be so confusing that putting someone not qualified in there would be a war-stopper.  But why couldn't you be the S-1, S-2, or S-3?  Or for that matter, the commander?  A medical battalion moves the same way any other battalion moves, and the service delivery is done by medical personnel in units.  Once you learn the capability of the units, why couldn't you establish a functional HQ?

The 1 or 2 would be doable - those are pretty generic.  But the 3 or commander?  I don't think so.  It would require a good knowledge of medical ops.  Yeah, I could muddle through, but the unit wouldn't be half as good as one led by a guy who came up in such units.