PD Progression, Grade Structure & Professionalism

[Eclipse]

That's fine - just progress organically and leave it at that.

[lordmonar]

Ah.....then yes....when you switch to normal membership.....all you have to do is Level I.   Nothing else needs to be done.   Don't want to be a Major due to your military/pilot/lawyer/CPA/Teacher/Doctor/et al.....credentials.....don't ask for it.   

Just follow the normal PD progression and use the normal duty performance promotions.

Eclipse beat me to it.

[VNY]

I guess what I'm saying is, if I was to to switch over, I wouldn't want to be a Major. I know a little bit about CAP but not enough to be the subject matter expert that wearing that rank would say that I am... or at least should be.

I came back to CAP and asked for - and got, my military grade established.  I have since caught up to the level of PD the grade would normally require, so I would be that anyway at this point.

My motivation was actually thrift.  I didn't want to have to keep changing everything.  I have met CAP captains who were PD level 5 and just stayed Captains as rank in CAP is meaningless.  And they were Captains only because they were flight instructors when they joined.

[Garibaldi]

I fully intend to remain a Major until forcibly promoted. If there was a way I could become a Dark Jedi (NCO) I would. Perfect grade for me.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

When I came back into CAP in '09, I told my then-CC that my grade of Captain dated back to 1997.

PD and rank progression were a bit different back then; i.e., ECI 13 had to be taken closed-book, and now it is done online as the Officer Basic Course.  My CC in 1993 enrolled me in ECI 13 right after I joined.  I still remember getting this stack of books in the mail and thinking "I have to learn all of this?"  As most who have taken that will attest, it was as exciting as munching on stale cardboard.

My SLS and CLC dated to 1994.

I told her that I was willing, and in fact preferred, to start out and "climb the ladder" again.  However, she submitted the paperwork for my grade to be reinstated, and it was, and so I became a Captain again.

I think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

[Tim Day]

Here's a slightly different perspective, maybe.

I came into CAP (again) in 2012. I requested the special promotion for several reasons, among them my perception that what CAP needed more than people with knowledge of CAP was people willing to put some leadership principles into some energetic action. Think of organizational knowledge as a lesser included set of that principle.

CAP advertised that they allowed military folks to come in at grade and I was "recruited" to fill a Deputy Commander for Cadets position. As a CAP O5, I expect to be expected to perform at an O5 level. The Navy had performance expectations that increased with grade, and so should CAP. That promotion took a year, during which I continued my PD and revived a unit cadet program.

If I am wearing silver oak leaves, I expect to be called out as an example, role-model, or responsible person in various settings. The barracks are a mess after they were supposed to be cleaned? The O6 should call the O5 in and put him in charge of fixing the problem. If there's a CMSgt in the crowd, I'd expect they'd be in a similar position.

I believe our issues with senior member grade reflect a cultural - not procedural - issue. Our corporate culture needs to expect more from members who wear senior grade. Don't want to be a leader anymore? Fine, we'll take those oak leaves back. That has precedence in both civilian and military environments. And there's room for letting folks wear grade when we want to recognize former contributions, e.g., the guy who spent four years as a Wing CC, as long as they know higher standards (if not participation) are expected of them.

My PD level doesn't reflect my current grade. That's because to be eligible for senior rating I have to serve for 12 months in a billet as a CPO technician (although I was a Deputy Commander for Cadets even before I was a tech). Next, I'll have to spend 18 months as a senior-rated CPO - although I lead and mentor folks who have been in CAP longer. I'm moving as fast as the PD pipeline allows, while doing jobs that require knowledge commensurate with Level IV. While Level IV guys are nowhere in sight. Doing the math, by the time I'm a senior rated CPO I'll have been a CDC for almost 2 years. I'll put my performance as a CPO up against any Level IV / master-rated CPO any day. I'm at least in that ballpark.

You (the rhetorical you, not the OP) want to slow my promotion rate down? Fine, make me ineligible to do the hard jobs until I organically promote to a grade where the hard jobs happen.

I don't mind being a junior officer as long as I get to act like one.

I do like the concept JeffDG suggested - associated grade with command and staff positions. But the more critical issue is the cultural one. I'm not sure TIG increases would help. In fact I might suggest reducing TIG for those who are active and contributing. Time serving in an actual responsible position matters more. This is not an issue in the military, since with promotion normally comes a set of orders to that next challenging job.

We could address the "personality" issues by holding boards (even virtual boards) and issue clear guidance to the board. Boards and guidance won't make personality issues go away, but they would help.

Either way - I'd love the discussion to migrate to how we get folks to act their grade.



   

[Eclipse]

My PD level doesn't reflect my current grade. That's because to be eligible for senior rating I have to serve for 12 months in a billet as a CPO technician (although I was a Deputy Commander for Cadets even before I was a tech). Next, I'll have to spend 18 months as a senior-rated CPO - although I lead and mentor folks who have been in CAP longer. I'm moving as fast as the PD pipeline allows, while doing jobs that require knowledge commensurate with Level IV. While Level IV guys are nowhere in sight. Doing the math, by the time I'm a senior rated CPO I'll have been a CDC for almost 2 years. I'll put my performance as a CPO up against any Level IV / master-rated CPO any day. I'm at least in that ballpark.

Really?  And, what, exactly, are you doing as a Unit CDC that is "commensurate" with Level IV?

CAP advertised that they allowed military folks to come in at grade and I was "recruited" to fill a Deputy Commander for Cadets position.

Here's part of the problem - we should not be recruiting commanders.

I don't mind being a junior officer as long as I get to act like one.

Um, what?

[LGM30GMCC]

I have held off on commenting on the topics of similar nature until the working group's report was released in some format. Now that it has been I'll talk a little about it but will not necessarily get into all the nitty gritty details for a number of reasons. That being said, I would like to shine some light on some of the thoughts and discussion here.

First, I want to assure all of you that the opinions of many CAPTALK members were considered throughout the process of discussions. A number of people on this board make various points and have concerns and some of the biggest, or most contentious ones, were discussed by the working group, often at great length. That being said, to prevent the grapevine from going crazy (as it is prone to doing, especially with information on this board) the internal discussions were kept largely internal to the working group. But if you think you are operating in a vacuum and no one is listening to what is said you are quite mistaken.

The group was also put together with a bit of a cross-section of people with different experiences and from around the country. This includes a member of the group that had not completed all of the TiG requirements, and was not, a CAP Lt Col. Additionally, as the report indicates, there was a lot of research put into it looking at the total force of the USAF, the USCG Aux, Boy Scouts, CAP historically, etc. There was also a mix of ES/AE/CP experience, Ops (pilot), and the like.

With regards to military officers retaining their grade: while many officers would have no issue with starting from the bottom, others would. It was discussed and input was sought from a number of sources and after the discussions you can see the results in the report.

The issues of an immediate reset, demoting people, or a period of grand fathering people in to a new program was also discussed. Essentially, rather than antagonize some who have served honorably and didn't do anything wrong under the old system, and things along those lines, that there was no need to go around demoting people.

This recommendation is focused as a long term fix that should alienate fewer people while the goal (improving the OVERALL quality of CAP officers) would be preserved and achieved. Essentially, as new generations of officers worked their way up the 'empty shirts' or others would find themselves more and more an exception, possibly passed over again and again for positions because they would not be as well trained or the most qualified. However, they would still have the opportunity to excel without any unnecessary embarrassment. The goal was to focus on POSITIVE reinforcement by raising new generations of high quality FGOs.

There were extensive discussions about the professional appointments, cadet appointments, and the like. Some of the issues are not a problem with the system, but a problem with the execution of the system. This was also addressed in discussions but is a cultural issue that cannot be solved simply by more regulation. There was effort to provide ideas on how to write regulations to support ensuring members actually complete the training and are up to standards. The thought was also to retain some autonomy for commanders (allow them to command) but ensure better oversight by the next higher echelon so it is more likely to have greater consistency across the force.

This was a first step, the final rendition of the regulation would require massive rewrites if that is the direction the CAP/CC wants CAP to go.

[a2capt]

I think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

What's stopping you? Can you not enroll in SLS, CLC, anyway? If there's room in the course, what's it going to hurt?

[Tim Day]

Really?  And, what, exactly, are you doing as a Unit CDC that is "commensurate" with Level IV?

In addition to CDC, I work with and for many of the folks in other squadrons, at Group and Wing level on Wing-wide issues, from ES training to the Wing's glider program to helping with the multi-Wing Conference. Note that I stated I'm in the ballpark of Level IV / master-rated CPOs. I do know fellow members who are putting in tremendous work at the Level IV level. Some even have the PD achievements to go with their performance. I admit the statement wasn't clear.

However, I'll take the opportunity of your comment to re-emphasize that I think this is a cultural issue. I'd be all for providing clear expectations for the PD levels, and not just for attaining the award but as an expectation of sustained performance.

CAPR 50-17 describes Level IV as "command and staff" and "designed for members who desire to become high-level leaders in CAP", while the CAPP 216 describes Master rating as  "capable of commanding a cadet unit, directing the Cadet Program at the wing level, and providing expert Cadet Programs advice to new members and senior CAP leaders". It's not "is serving as a Wing Director of Cadet Programs".

What if we explicitly linked that to positions at higher levels of responsibility? I.e., "Level IV officers serve at the group level as commanders and at the wing level as directors."

So we take our eternal Captains and, if they are performing to Level III standards we promote them. TIG doesn't really demonstrate anything. The only reason there's TIG associated with promotion in the military is that there is sufficient inventory of people within that grade and with whom one competes for promotion. When the inventory is degraded, the TIG decreases (e.g., WWII).

We need to be measuring demonstrated performance and making that a cultural norm if we're serious about fixing anything.

Here's part of the problem - we should not be recruiting commanders.

I totally agree. We should have a plentiful inventory of would-be commanders with the prerequisite grade, knowledge, leadership ability, and availability for non-paid work, all competing with each other. Those who rise to the top should be assigned to the hardest jobs.

Um, what?

Um, a junior officer is typically not a Deputy Commander, or even a department head. They serve as a JO and are mentored by senior officers. They do fun jobs like fly airplanes. The NCOs keep them from getting into too much trouble.

For example: No, Lt, we won't let you manage Wing-wide glider registrations. We need at least a Capt for that. You could drive 8 cadets to your squadron's glider orientation flight day, though. Fortunately, we have lots of active members at the Capt level who we can order to do hard jobs with significant responsibility because they're bucking for Maj!

The point is, if your active duty and retired military officers were told that they could come into CAP as an O5, but would be required to immediately begin a training track for Wing Director of Operations or Group Command and would be expected to fill those O5 positions if they wanted to retain their grade, many of the ones who you don't want wearing O5 would decline the offer.

When I joined and my CC talked to me about the special promotion, he expected me to serve actively and contribute to the squadron.  My read of CAPR 50-17 is that as an O5 being of service to my Wing should be a minimum expectation. That's consistent with the way the military views performance: something that might earn a 1st Lt an award might earn a Lt Col a "thanks for coming to work."

In the meantime, I've taken every PD test in my specialty I can while I wait for TIG to tick over. When it does, I'll take and pass my Master CPO test and start waiting for 18 months to pass, while continuing to make myself available to Squadron, Group, and Wing and doing what I can to contribute to the mission according to what I view as commensurate with what should be expected of a Lt Col.

The PD program needs to complement a culture of excellence. We might accomplish that by focusing more on sustained performance and demonstrated leadership, and less on TIG.

OBTW, this came in as I was drafting my response, and I heartily concur (as well as with those last three paragraphs):

but is a cultural issue that cannot be solved simply by more regulation.

Very encouraging to see this recognized.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

What's stopping you? Can you not enroll in SLS, CLC, anyway? If there's room in the course, what's it going to hurt?

There is nothing stopping me and it would not hurt a thing.  In fact, I have instructed at an SLS - but it was years ago.

What I am trying to get at is that if I were to have "started over," everything would (should?) be documented in E-Services.

As it is, and I am sure many others from the "pre-technology" era can relate, my "documentation" has quite a few gaps in it from trying to keep various bits of paper together through many moves.  A former squadron CC in another Wing whom I have not seen or talked to in almost seven years, and have no idea where he lives, how to get in touch with him, or even if he is still living, let alone in CAP, has (had?) some of my papers and certificates.

I suppose the upshot is that I would have preferred to start with a "clean slate."

[Tim Day]

This recommendation is focused as a long term fix that should alienate fewer people while the goal (improving the OVERALL quality of CAP officers) would be preserved and achieved. Essentially, as new generations of officers worked their way up the 'empty shirts' or others would find themselves more and more an exception, possibly passed over again and again for positions because they would not be as well trained or the most qualified. However, they would still have the opportunity to excel without any unnecessary embarrassment. The goal was to focus on POSITIVE reinforcement by raising new generations of high quality FGOs.

I'd like to comment on this, specifically. This is one of the more insightful statements that have been made on this thread. As a Lt Col, CAP, who received my grade via a special promotion based on my military grade I'm going to do my best to live up to that grade. I don't want my performance to reflect poorly on either CAP or my Service. Part of that performance is pursuing my PD.

Since I can't directly influence the degree to which other senior members live up to the grade they are wearing (sometimes I'm not even aware of what they're doing for CAP), I'll just do my best to model what I think that standard should be.

If there are enough of us who see grade this way eventually we'll change the culture. Leadership can help (or is helping) by clearly stating these expectations, and maybe making some improvements to the PD system.

Here's my recommendation for a replacement for all TIG requirements: make billet history a factor in promotions. In the military, as Storm Chaser alluded to, a promotion is not a reward for completing a course or passing a test, although sometimes those are also required. A promotion occurs when the Service trusts you to handle greater responsibility. The authority (and pay) that comes with your new grade isn't a prize, it's a means of fulfilling the greater responsibility that comes with your new grade. 

CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions. 

People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. My CC has listed "identifying his replacement" as one of his goals. That shouldn't be something a CC has to worry about, because there should be someone who wants to promote but needs a CC (or equivalent) tour to become eligible. TIG would come as a beneficial side effect because there will be minimum tour lengths for each job. However, if you spend 3 years as Squadron CC, Group CD, and Wing DO, you could promote faster than someone who spends 3 years as a SM-without-duty-position. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

Furthermore, the question should be published on the website under the FAQ that addresses the "Is prior military experience counted" question and also discussed with those prospective members who have prior service at the membership board.

[Mitchell 1969]

Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

And if that ever happens, make sure a photographer is there. Because you'll need photographs to help the sculptor chisel out the statue of the first USMC captain to say "Nah, I'm fine wearing cutouts and saluting Second Lieutenants who've only been in CAP 6 months."

[lordmonar]

This all circles around the basic "problem" with CAP rank.

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

So....either we just accept the status quo and put band-aids on the problems our system generates.  Or we trash the whole system and develop another model to base our system around.

[LGM30GMCC]

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

The idea here is to have rank recognize what a person has been trained and is capable of doing. Not necessarily what the organization is currently using them for. The theory is that they are able to the things listed for their rank in Table 1 of the NPRWG's report. It is a definition of the system slightly outside the way the way the USAF uses its folks, "another model to base our system around." It may not be an exact match to what we would like but I would still say it is better than the current system as it has many more measures that can be made. (Need to test 'understanding' you can use a test. Need to test 'Demonstrate' you can have a task evaluation of some kind.)

Here's my recommendation for a replacement for all TIG requirements: make billet history a factor in promotions. In the military, as Storm Chaser alluded to, a promotion is not a reward for completing a course or passing a test, although sometimes those are also required. A promotion occurs when the Service trusts you to handle greater responsibility. The authority (and pay) that comes with your new grade isn't a prize, it's a means of fulfilling the greater responsibility that comes with your new grade. 

The NPRWG agrees with that being the idea of a new grade. "It should promote officers based on their demonstrated ability to successfully serve in the next higher grade and in positions of greater responsibility." For example, before being promoted to Captain you need to be able to do the things shown in Table 1 for captain. Instead of saying 'Hey you have this job on Wing Staff so you should be a captain' we're looking at it as 'Hey, you need a wing staffer for X?, you prolly want to look at a captain.' (At least as the system matures.)

CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions.

This was also discussed and not recommended for several reasons. One of them was that not all jobs at all levels realistically are equally challenging and trying to weigh one against another for what counts can get very tricky. (For example, are the Wing Finance Officers all really equal? If a wing has a budget of $1000 are they doing the same job (demands wise) as someone working with a budget of $100,000? What about personnel, etc) Additionally, it is a matrix that would have to change as jobs shift. Anytime a new position was added to 20-1 it would have to be added to a matrix in a different regulation and 'racked and stacked' against others.

Additionally, it was viewed that the rank being based on levels would already  incorporate that because specialty track ratings are required for advancement in level. You have to get a master rating in a specialty track to advance so that would be the avenue for that specific track.

Finally, there was concern that those who simply do not have the avenues to serve on higher staffs, for one reason or another, would be stunted by internal politics.

(It's recognition that it's there, and term limits for commanders are an interesting step but how much CAP will adopt that for ALL positions is certainly a question. In many ways this was to avoid the very problem the Guard can have when people's careers get stunted because no one above them is moving up or out.)

The minimum term for positions is another good idea that could be incorporated but that is more a 20-1 or specialty track realm than it is one for a promotion regulation. But it certainly could be discussed some more in those realms if this proposal was incorporated into regulation. Time in Grade though

People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This somewhat defeats the purpose of moving away from promotions being a reward for past performance. If there is a hard-to-fill billet that doesn't carry Level III type responsibilities why should it get credit for level III? Additionally, this could easily lead to small wings (couple hundred people in them total) declaring ALL their positions to be 'Hard-fill' and lots of people just coming in to get credit for things. Part of the goal of this proposal is to increase consistency so a Lt Col from WY has a similar skill set to a Lt Col from Wing/HQ of CAWG.

This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

The exact method of promotion was outside the scope of the NPRWG but it certainly is an interesting discussion to look at next. There was some discussion of whether promotion recommendations should be kept at the squadron, group, wing, or even region level. As you're aware (but some who read this board may not be) promotion authority in the Real Military is NOT held by Sq/CCs or even up to NAF or MAJCOM commanders. It's done by a board of officers who are looking at everyone eligible across the entirety of the USAF. Now the commanders certainly have a layer of input but they are not the sole authority for it.

CAP could adopt this model but the current infrastructure doesn't really support it. Additionally, it could be extremely burdensome on the membership to carry out and could vastly slow the promotion process. There could be a yearly board done for each promotion, or only those of a certain set, but this can be troublesome enough at the Region or Wing Level let alone the national level.

There is also nothing saying a board can't ask those types of questions as it is since military rank is technically not automatic. However, if an active duty officer, who could produce substantiating records of their service in that rank, were denied promotion by CAP in the current clime, I do not see that going well for the commander that denied it. It could get REALLY ugly between the USAF and CAP and the board that did it better have a darn-tooting-good reason to do so at this point.

All THAT being said, there was another recommendation that was voiced but has nothing to do with this report that might interest you. That being a pamphlet (50- series) should be written by military officers and NCOs who are long-time members of CAP talking about the differences between CAP and the regular military and how to adapt to them. It would be written in 'military speak'. Essentially, it would be a similar thought like the one for a cadet becoming a senior member. Not regulatory in nature but informative. However, it does open additional possibilities that could be discussed further down the road.

Edits: Couple formatting and just a few extra clarifications upon further review after proofreading

[Storm Chaser]

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

This is not a "problem" that needs solving. A Lt Col flying as a navigator with a Capt as the Aircraft Commander (PIC) is akin to our Operations/ES qualifications specialties/ICS structure, where the qualified IC may be a Capt, while the CUL or MP may be a Lt Col. It's about qualifications and specialties. That same Capt in an Air Force flying squadron would never be appointed squadron commander, a Lt Col would. So in the example provided, the Col or Lt Col would be in charge in the ground and only subordinate to the Capt while conducting the mission/sortie. If that aircraft crashes, the senior ranking officer takes command.

That's not the same in CAP, where you can encounter 1st Lt with little experience and/or qualifications as squadron commanders, with more experienced Lt Cols serving under them in other support functions.

[Panache]

Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

And if that ever happens, make sure a photographer is there. Because you'll need photographs to help the sculptor chisel out the statue of the first USMC captain to say "Nah, I'm fine wearing cutouts and saluting Second Lieutenants who've only been in CAP 6 months."

And if he's not fine with it, he shouldn't be in CAP to begin with.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Slightly OT but I remember reading a story about an RAF bomber that had to stop at a USAAF station in Egypt (I think) for repairs.

At that time the RAF/Commonwealth had Sergeants as pilots.  This Wellington (I think) bomber had a Flight Sergeant as pilot and aircraft captain, and Sergeants in the gunners' positions.  His co-pilot and navigator were both Flying Officers (First Lieutenant).  When they stopped at the USAAF base, their American allies' Adjutant could not figure out where to put the crew members in regard to billets...the "Aircraft Captain" was taken to the Officers' Mess and the rest of the crew to the Sergeants' Mess.  The "Aircraft Captain" had to inform his Yank friends that two of his crew were, in fact, officers, while he was not, and he requested "just put me up in the Sergeants' Mess, Sir."  The USAAF officer walked away muttering about the peculiarities of the British.

How does that relate to the thread?  In many cases, with us, position takes precedence over rank.

On one mission (as a Captain) I flew as Mission Scanner with a First Lieutenant Pilot and a Major as Observer.  The Lieutenant (courteously but unnecessarily) said "Sirs, I know you both outrank me, but please remember for the duration of the flight that I am PIC," which of course we already knew.  He seemed a bit self-conscious about it, but a nice guy (and excellent pilot) nonetheless (in fact, despite his FAA qualifications and being a brainiac graduate of Embry-Riddle, he did not request advanced rank when he joined CAP).

My squadron has a Captain as CC, but there are other Captains, as well as a Major and two Lieutenant Colonels, as members of the unit.  We all know ultimately who has to say yea or nay to squadron issues.  I cannot go to him and say "we're both Captains, and I've been one a lot longer than you, so don't lord it over me."  Well, I could, if I wanted to be that kind of idiot, but, despite being an idiot on too many occasions  at least I know how stupid (and CAP-career-ending) it would be to do that.

Again the rank/office system of the CGAUX comes to mind, but if anything, I found that even more confusing (I never did learn all the alphabet-soup of abbreviations).  I was wearing the insignia equivalent of a Lieutenant j.g., but not the title, and a former Division Captain wearing Commander insignia equivalent was "junior" to me because I was the Deputy Commander of my Flotilla.  As well, at a Change of Watch we had an AD CG Lieutenant Commander as guest, and I knew I had to salute him and address him as "sir," but not another Auxiliarist wearing equivalent insignia...

As I have stated in the past, CAP could benefit from a warrant officer tier, but of course that is extremely unlikely to happen.

[Panache]

Question for LGM30GMCC...

Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

Granted, some of the ideas in the FO expansion I didn't think were feasible (Requiring a Senior Specialty Track rating for SFO seemed unrealistic, for example, as I know a couple of Captains who don't have Senior ratings), but it would give new members more time to acclimate to the CAP culture before becoming Second Lieutenants, as well as reenforcing to the USAF that we considered 2nd Lt to be something to work for, not a practically-automatic increase after six months.  I do like the idea of OBC being a pre-requisite to 2nd Lt though.

[Storm Chaser]

Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.