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.

[Smithsonia]

Shortfield;

Well I think interoperability is the goal for certain skill-sets, for FEMA, at leasy. Mostly these are the command soft-skills. I'm not saying every fireman is also expected to be a mission pilot -- I'm saying that the IO duties for fire, police, CAP, wildland fire command center, the earthquake center in Golden, CO. are not unique enough to disqualify a good-cross-trained generalist IO helping in a pinch.

So to sum up -- there's no good reason not to train up to FEMA standards. From what I see this isn't rocket science and there's not that much math so I think I can work for FEMA and Volunteer for CAP. If not on the same mission, at least in the same general part of the country.

With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[Short Field]

You can certainly be dual qualified as a FEMA IO and a CAP IO.  My point is that while skills in one organization certainly can make you more qualified in another - it does not automatically qualify you in the second organization.  If you are a fully qualified IO in most any organization, it should not take much to get fully qualified as a CAP IO - but you do need the CAP framework to help prepare great news releases with the CAP flavor and prospective to them.

Basic skills transfer well - it is just the CAP framework that needs to be added.  Some Ops Quals need a deeper understanding of the CAP framework than other Ops Quals.   Getting qualified in multiple specialities and working for multiple organizations is only limited by your available time.

[DNall]

What infantry skills are applicable to CAP?

There's two parts to being a field leader in the military, Army anyway. That's leadership (TLPs, planning, etc), and it's technical/tactical skills. You certainly in no way need any advancement in CAP for knowledge of weapons systems or battle drills, and that's the bread & butter of being an infantryman. The TLPs & small unit leader process on the other hand are essential to CAP. It's not something we teach at all, and is an area we are seriously deficient in. At the same time, it's in no way whatever limited to just infantry. How are you going to keep that from cav scouts, MPs, combat engineers, FA, or even admin NCOs. It's a process and skills that are taught to everyone & universally applied. That's not something we need to be offering advanced promotions for, it's something we need to integrate into our training & share with all our members.

[McAllister]

I agree. Some of the skills they learned in the infantry could probably benifit a few parts of the program.

[cap235629]

the basic mission of an infantry soldier is to close with and destroy the enemy.........

so go get your orange vest and camouflage BDU's and lets go...............................

WALK A SEARCH LINE!!

this is a stretch to say the least

[JohnKachenmeister]

What infantry skills are applicable to CAP?

There's two parts to being a field leader in the military, Army anyway. That's leadership (TLPs, planning, etc), and it's technical/tactical skills. You certainly in no way need any advancement in CAP for knowledge of weapons systems or battle drills, and that's the bread & butter of being an infantryman. The TLPs & small unit leader process on the other hand are essential to CAP. It's not something we teach at all, and is an area we are seriously deficient in. At the same time, it's in no way whatever limited to just infantry. How are you going to keep that from cav scouts, MPs, combat engineers, FA, or even admin NCOs. It's a process and skills that are taught to everyone & universally applied. That's not something we need to be offering advanced promotions for, it's something we need to integrate into our training & share with all our members.

I agree with you, Dennis.

Use of the 5 paragraph operations order format is as good for sending out a ground team as it is for sending out an ambush patrol.  A ground search team is nothing more than an unarmed recon patrol, anyway.

Tags - MIKE

[JoeTomasone]

Wow, I musta missed this thread when it hit.... 

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. 

As a Comms Officer and Wing Certified Comms Instructor, I have to disagree here.   There are too many specifics to CAP comms that would never be gleaned in a non-CAP setting to allow even awarding BCUT.   For example, some of the items required to be taught that wouldn't be known outside CAP are:

1.  Tactical Callsigns (including CAPFLIGHT, HIGHBIRD, and tactical calls 1-6.   In fact, in contrast to the military, Florida CAP (or whatever) 6 would NOT be the (Wing) Commander!)

2.  National Standard Channel allocations

3.  Universal Access Tone, and when it can be used (and when it can't)

4.  Maximum power limits for base, mobile, handheld, and aircraft

5.  Net operations - roles of NCS/ANCS

I would also speculate that repeaters and repeater operation are not a big facet of infantry comms training.

[lordmonar]

Joe....I got to say BS to that.

By BCUT class and ACUT class were both wastes of time. 

Even as an advanced user of CAP comm stuff....a lot of that technical information is no needed.  All a user needs to know is that repeater x is on chanel y of the radio that was issued to him.

Tactical call signs are adhoc anyway they can be what ever works.

[arajca]

Tactical call signs are adhoc anyway they can be what ever works.

Tactical call signs are fixed (i.e. BM4 - me). Functional call signs are ad hoc (Ground Team 1, Luxor Base, etc).

[JoeTomasone]

Even as an advanced user of CAP comm stuff....a lot of that technical information is no needed.  All a user needs to know is that repeater x is on chanel y of the radio that was issued to him.

I'm not even sure how to begin...

Much of the BCUT/ACUT training gives you information on how to operate within regulations.  Unless you deem that to be "not needed", of course...

If all a user knew was that repeater x was on channel y, then:

1. They would not know how to access a repeater in another Wing if sent there on a DR mission. 

2. They would be clueless when told to go to "Victor 4".

3. When "Uncle Mike 4" comes on the air, they will have no idea who that person is.

4. While in an aircraft, they will have no idea what frequencies may be used and at what power levels.

5. They won't know what to do when a repeater they are using FAILS.

6. They will not know how to efficiently operate during a net to pass mission-critical traffic in an expeditious manner.   In fact, they will be likely to jam up the whole works.

7. They will know none of the required prowords; meaning that the difference between "WAIT" and "WAIT OUT" will be lost on them (for example).

8. In FL Wing (and presumably others), they would have no idea what callsign is assigned to a Corporate vehicle, Corporate aircraft, or member-owned aircraft on a reimbursable mission.

9. They will have no idea what a PAN call means, nor what to do when they hear one.

I could go on and on and on...   But there's a lot more involved than just selecting a channel and keying the mike, just as there's more to being in the Infantry than walking through the woods with a gun looking for things to shoot.

[RiverAux]

Not sure what this has to do with infantry skills and CAP special appintments...

[oak2007]

What about giving special appointments for infantry cooks. We all need to eat in the field.

cook Hamburgers 2Lt
cook Steak           1LT
cook Fish              Captain

[SarDragon]

What about giving special appointments for infantry cooks. We all need to eat in the field.

cook Hamburgers 2Lt
cook Steak           1LT
cook Fish              Captain

cook Calimari that doesn't like rubber bands      LtCol