Special appointments for infantry skills

[RiverAux]

CAP has a number of ways in which new members can achieve a promotion after completing Level 1 and CPPT based on mission-related skills.  However, the current program only applies to those with flying, aircraft maintenance, communication, and flight instructor backgrounds.  I am generally opposed to such quickie promotions but have come to realize that they are here to stay and I might as well try to figure out how to make them work for us. 

We obviously need to do what we can to increase recruitment of those who wish to participate in the ground team program, especially senior members.  This is an extremely critical skill of which CAP is generally in short supply.  So, I would like to propose that qualified infantrymen from the Army or Marines receive higher initial appointments. 

While I recognize that a lot of infantry skills are not of use to CAP, but the basic map reading and field craft that makes up a large part of the ground team program are the heart and soul of infantry life.  Sure, they will need some SAR training to get up to speed on what we're doing, but the same can be said of a CFI who comes into CAP as a Captain and has to be taught SAR theory, patterns, etc. just like other aircrew members.  They receive the bump because they have skill in short supply  that we need and from which we can build. 

Besides infantrymen in general, the special appointment could be offered to graduates of some schools that focus on these sorts of skills (Ranger, Pathfinder, etc.). 

FYI, I tried this topic way back in 2006 but it almost immediately went off track into a discussion of special appointments in general.  Since we've got twice as many members now as then, I thought I'd try it again.....

For the purpose of this thread, pretend that special appointments in general are here to stay, so no comments about that.  Thanks.

[Stonewall]

As an Infantryman and rated Ground Team Leader, I would say yes, some infantry skills are worthy of acceptance by CAP and relate to GSAR.  But to me, the most important of all skills is that of leadership and management of a small group. 

But as to individual skills, let's look at Map Reading/Land Navigation.

As a grunt, I learned solely how to use a MGRS map with protractor and issued lensatic compass.  In CAP, we rarely use the MGRS (military map) unless you're at NESA which is conducted on a military base.  Sure, using a compass is using a compass, but using Lat/Long or even UTM leaves little resemblance to general military map reading. 

US Army Combat Life Savers (CLS) course is a 40 hour course which includes the use of IVs.  However, I doubt CAP would allow the First Aid/CPR requirement be waivered.  I know they didn't for me back in the mid 90s.  I was required to take First Aid/CPR.  In fact, in 1993 I was a qualified NREMT-B through the Army but some knucklehead in CAP said the requirements (at the time) clearly stated Basic First Aid or Advanced First Aid as the requirement and wouldn't accept EMT-B.

Radio communications.  Absolutely.  I think an ACUT should be awarded.  In Basic Training and Infantry School, we learned things like the phonetic alphabet (I knew it from being a cadet), basic radio procedures, and some other basics.  However, unless you're a team leader or above, or an RTO, you may go your entire enlistment without ever using a radio.

Basic skills?  Nope, never learned any as an 11B grunt.  Now, at SERE school in the Air Force, I learned things like signalling, starting fires, making water drinkable, and keeping myself warm.  But the average Infantry soldier doesn't get that training unless they have a good squad leader who had that training and likes to do it during "sergeant's time".

I don't know, thinking about it, perhaps an accelerated GTM qualification course should be allowed, but definitely not a complete GTM qualification.  Like I said, leadership and management skills were more important than standard infantry skills, but that's me.

[capchiro]

Well, with that in consideration, perhaps Boy Scouts should be given special appointments as they also learn map reading, compass, survival skills, etc.  Perhaps base it on a specific Scout rank??  Maybe Eagle Scout, Maybe Life??  Maybe Second Class??  It would seem the scout training would be more in line with CAP's needs than infantry training??  Scout's know first aid.  They even get to play with knive's once they get their whittlin' chip..

[RiverAux]

Yes,the maps used are different, but the skill sets to use those maps are the same.

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that we waiver any ES Qualification for anybody.  Under my proposal, an infantryman would still have to demonstrate the ability to do GT tasks to do GT work just like a pilot that got a special appointment still has to demonstrate pilot and SAR skills to be a mission pilot.

Boy Scouts are a different thread (worth discussing). 

[EXArmySFinIowa]

When I went to Army Basic everyone was taught basic combat first aid and CPR, we were taught to read both civilian and military maps to include Lat/Long, UTM and GeoRef coord. We were also taught basic field sanitation, basic communications, establishing and joining nets.  At AIS we were taught basic individual survival skills.  If you have the rank of Sgt (E5) you should have been through BNOC and PNOC which should have taught you small squad tactics and leadership.  With just a few CAP related task training, a current or former military member (Army/Marine).  Now I went in the Army in 1976 and the training may have changed some, but the NG personnel returning from Advance Infantry school seem to have a good hand on the skills in question.  So if they could dmonstrate the skills I see no reason not to fast track GT3,2,1 and even GTL, with an advance promotion.

[Stonewall]

When I went to Army Basic everyone was taught basic combat first aid and CPR, we were taught to read both civilian and military maps to include Lat/Long, UTM and GeoRef coord. We were also taught basic field sanitation, basic communications, establishing and joining nets.  At AIS we were taught basic individual survival skills.  If you have the rank of Sgt (E5) you should have been through BNOC and PNOC which should have taught you small squad tactics and leadership.  With just a few CAP related task training, a current or former military member (Army/Marine).  Now I went in the Army in 1976 and the training may have changed some, but the NG personnel returning from Advance Infantry school seem to have a good hand on the skills in question.  So if they could dmonstrate the skills I see no reason not to fast track GT3,2,1 and even GTL, with an advance promotion.

Nope, at BCT and Infantry School, I never learned anything but MGRS.  I happened to learn Lat/Long, etc, because I was also in CAP as an Observer and GTL at the time.  Basic field sanitation is a plus as it could be used in a CAP enviornment, but at no time was I officially taught any individual survival skills and I was infantry for 10 years.  Sure, we had some "hip pocket training" on the subject, but we never had a survival instructor actually present us with a lesson plan.  While in the Air Guard I went to SERE school for 3 weeks where lots of stuff could be associated with the survival aspect/requirements of CAP GSAR.  I went to PLDC and BNCO so yeah, like I said in my first post, those skills as a leader and manager are perhaps the best skills I brought with me to CAP ground search and rescue.   

As said by others, nothing should just be written off, but "challenged" to prove proficiency and knowledge of said tasks being challenged.

[capchiro]

A thought comes to mind.  If a promotion/appointment were based upon ES skills, would any promotion/appointment/rank that such an individual was awarded then revert back to senior member if they didn't recertify in time to keep their GT quals??  Just a thought.  Even if a pilot doesn't fly anymore, he doesn't lose his initial appointment for special skills.     

[Ned]

As said by others, nothing should just be written off, but "challenged" to prove proficiency and knowledge of said tasks being challenged.

Hmmm.

Just for the sake of discussion, why worry about where the skills came from?  Does it matter whether it came from infantry training or Boy Scouts?

Maybe the answer is to allow anyone to test for "advanced placement" / grade.  If they can pass the hands-on proficiency test, they get the grade.  If not, hello SM status.

And that should apply to any specilalty that doesn't require a license of some sort.

Waddya think?

[mikeylikey]

I have to say my math and land nav skills are far superior to any infantry type.  Artillery is just as "combat arms" as infantry is, plus it requires critical thinking and math skills that rank on the calc and trig levels. 

Artillery Officer Basic and Advanced Courses are the most difficult of any Officer type course in any branch of the military.  The recycle and drop rate of students is the largest as well.  Try landing a shell on a tank from 6 miles away, taking into consideration wind, temperature, propellant to be used, fuse times, elevations, the charge itself, direction etc.  And do that all by hand with a pencil ,a piece of paper, 5 data books, three slide rules and a map.  Just like flying, I am expected to still do my job when the computers go down.  I can whip out a fire order in under 2 minutes. 

Now.......how does all that relate to ground team and advanced promotion??  It most likely does not, except for the navigation skills learned.  More important is the leadership taught in the military that service members bring to CAP. 

I say NO on advanced promotion for "Infantry types".  If CAP had a combat mission, this would be more applicable, but we do not.  As far as Advanced Promotion for Officers of the Uniformed Services, I say that is fine, as they bring in proven leadership, and they have worked [darn] hard for their military rank, much harder than they would in CAP, and should be rewarded. 

^Now, I am one of a few Military Officers that choose many years ago to advance through CAP just as a non-military person would.  I promote in CAP based on TIG.  Even after I was promoted in the Army, I still did not put in for advanced promotion in CAP.  Doing this makes me feel like I am just like everyone else.  HOWEVER, I have used my military PME to get credit for some CAP courses.  I just sent in my waiver request letter for RSC.     

[hatentx]

Why should it be just infantry guy getting it.  All Army MOSs are suppose to be profiecient in these tasks.  I know in my Aviation MOS we train for DART (down aircraft recovery team) missions, where we can have anything from hiking to the site securing the site providing first aid.  In combat we are not using ELTs but using last known GPS and BFT coordinates.  Why wouldn't my MOS be given special treatment?  I think if you start making exceptions here and there you will start having to make a ton more.  I can see the FAA aproved school but once you start adding military training to "CLEP" the certifications then we will eventually have people that dont know there job. 

[Major Carrales]

Now, I am one of a few Military Officers that choose many years ago to advance through CAP just as a non-military person would.  I promote in CAP based on TIG.  Even after I was promoted in the Army, I still did not put in for advanced promotion in CAP.  Doing this makes me feel like I am just like everyone else.  HOWEVER, I have used my military PME to get credit for some CAP courses.  I just sent in my waiver request letter for RSC.

I could have been advanced right to CAPTAIN for my credentials as a teacher, I avoided that for one underlying reason.  I would have been a Captain brand new to CAP...I did not feel I had the chutzpah necessary to take the role of a Captain without the knowledge.  I came up from the bottom.   Now I'm a Major, I've been in a while...I've been commanded and have commanded.  I have more of a feel for how CAP works best in my area.

I would imagine that some infantry Officer or NCO coming from the theater of operations to a CAP unit would be shocked at the difference in operations.  I can only speculate.  Mike, would you say this is true?

[mikeylikey]

I would imagine that some infantry Officer or NCO coming from the theater of operations to a CAP unit would be shocked at the difference in operations.  I can only speculate.  Mike, would you say this is true?

Absolutely, if the Officer or NCO joined CAP after returning from overseas, or even after a few months on AD. 

They may actually be turned off for the simple reason that we are not as faced paced, have Lt's Commanding Lt Col's, Senior Members walk around in a polo and grey pants, Customs and Courtesies are very relaxed and at many meetings Seniors are relegated to drinking coffee and reminiscing about their experiences in a previous life. 

Most CAP members that are prior service or currently serving, were once part of CAP, have a kid in CAP, knew about CAP and wanted to join previously but could not or are here to get the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal 

As stated above, if we open up advanced promotion for Infantry skills, we would need to open it up for everyone.  Every Marine is trained in Infantry tactics.  Even every Army Officer is proficient in infantry tactics, as they all attended courses and were tested out of the infantry books.  Heck, the entire third year of the Army ROTC course is nothing but (entirely) Infantry instruction.  The entire "summer camp" for Cadets is one big Field exercise, with a magnitude of tests and exercises that must be passed to Commission.  Then most if not all brand new Officers are required to complete a Basic course where nothing but infantry tactics and small unit leadership (war fighting skills) are taught.  I would say that the 2LT Commissioned just under 1 year ago knows more about Infantry and tactics than an enlisted Infantryman, I will go as far as making that 2LT a Finance Officer to boot!!

So, what should we do for the AF and Navy types??  Where is their special promotion. 

[Short Field]

We do have special appointments for people with infantry skills.  They can wear their highest rank earned - up to Lt Col.  This is covered under CAPR 35-5, Section C, para 12.

You are talking about Mission Related Skills, covered under CAPR 35-5, Section D, para 22.  All of these require a FAA/FCC rating.

You made the proposal, so tell us what criteria and what grades you are proposing for infantry skills?

[lordmonar]

And let's not forget some of use USAF types have some ground pounder skills too......five years in a combat comm unit will do that to you.

The problem I see is "certification".   Pilots, Lawers, Doctors and AE members are not given advanced promotions just for their skills...but they have some sort of degree or certification.

If we open the door for advanced promotion based on "skills" and not some sort of certification then you are gaoing to have to adress things like Boy Scout experince (and that does apply) and other sources of field craft experince.

[flyerthom]

As said by others, nothing should just be written off, but "challenged" to prove proficiency and knowledge of said tasks being challenged.

Hmmm.

Just for the sake of discussion, why worry about where the skills came from?  Does it matter whether it came from infantry training or Boy Scouts?

Maybe the answer is to allow anyone to test for "advanced placement" / grade.  If they can pass the hands-on proficiency test, they get the grade.  If not, hello SM status.

And that should apply to any specilalty that doesn't require a license of some sort.

Waddya think?

Well it's a reasonable idea.  But, then how about Fire/EMS people who are trained in incident command. Shouldn't they be given the same consideration for IC status? We have people who have IC'd multiple casualty motor vehicle crashes and multi story fires and are not granted CAP IC status. These are people who IC , in the real world, on a regular basis and can't run a SAREX.  That's a profound waste of talent and experience.

[Major Carrales]

I don't  think this conversation is advancing...

Analysis via the Stock Issues-

Solvency-  What problem does appointments for Infantry skills solve?  One coudl say that, at current, there is no "problem" to solve.  1 of 10 points.

Harms- Are there any disadvantages from granting advanced promotions for Infantry skills.  As demonstrated, a possible harm would be a "free for all" in that many more debates and arguements on who should get a special promotion would, and have, insued.  Still, a case can be made that these skills are needed.  5 of 10 points.

Inherency- Is this already being done.  It has been pointed out that some degree of "reward" for prior service special promotion is given to members already.  1 of 10 possible points.

Topicality- This topic had a tendency to drift, especially when the issue of special promotions is expanded to Boy Scout and EMS. 4 of 10 points.

Significance-  Is this a significant issue for discussion and policy? The recognition of knowledge and skills is significant; it could be argued that a standard for special promotion is not a big deal.  7 of 10 points.

Thus, after the above analysis (18 of 50 possible points) the matter is somewhat on the low side.

[Short Field]

And remember - Every Marine is a Rifleman.  So any Marine qualifies as infanty.

[SJFedor]

As said by others, nothing should just be written off, but "challenged" to prove proficiency and knowledge of said tasks being challenged.

Hmmm.

Just for the sake of discussion, why worry about where the skills came from?  Does it matter whether it came from infantry training or Boy Scouts?

Maybe the answer is to allow anyone to test for "advanced placement" / grade.  If they can pass the hands-on proficiency test, they get the grade.  If not, hello SM status.

And that should apply to any specilalty that doesn't require a license of some sort.

Waddya think?

Well it's a reasonable idea.  But, then how about Fire/EMS people who are trained in incident command. Shouldn't they be given the same consideration for IC status? We have people who have IC'd multiple casualty motor vehicle crashes and multi story fires and are not granted CAP IC status. These are people who IC , in the real world, on a regular basis and can't run a SAREX.  That's a profound waste of talent and experience.

Very true, but I wouldn't want to throw them directly into the IC role for us, because you and I both know that IC'ing a multi-story fire or multi vehicle MVC is a heck of a lot different then IC'ing any of our operations. I would think a bit of a fast track may be in order, but they do need to be intimately familiar with our capabilities, rules, and regulations before we let them run the show.

[Smithsonia]

This conversation brings up a very important point.

We are being trained for INTER-OPERABILITY without fully acknowledging that we are interoperable. I'm taking FEMA IO courses and besides the standard IC300/400 additions can't get full credit for the courses.

Although I'm not yet fully trained as a CAP IO/IC... by the time I get done with the FEMA Academy courses -- I should be ready for my "real world and exercise" FEMA -- IO/PAO/IC trainee status. CAP SQTRS requirements should intergrate fully with FEMA, right now they don't. So much for interoperability. As such, CAP NHQ should update the e-services registration system.

With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Short Field]

Smithsonia,

From what I have seen of the CAP training and the other agencies training - CAP is not being trained for interoperability so much as being able to operate with the other agencies.  When fully compliant, we will be using the same forms, same command structure, and (hopefully) be able to communicate with each other.   But from what I have seen, there is no way we can mix and match Command Staff between agencies.   

There are very few CAP SQTRs that require a great deal of work.  For IO, there are only a couple of "demonstrate the ability to" without very much in the way of specialized training outside of the ICS courses.  Our bar is not set that high.