CAP Talk

Quote from: Pylon on November 27, 2006, 10:23:31 PM

Quote from: MIKE on November 27, 2006, 09:27:05 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on November 27, 2006, 08:42:18 PM
There is no grade of Sergeant (Sgt) in CAP.  Our grade is based on the USAF which abandoned Sgt quite a while ago.  NCO grades start at SSgt and go to CMSgt.

Go read CAPR 35-5 again.

Our grades are not USAF grades.  If they were, CAP would have eliminated warrant/flight officer grades when the USAF abandoned the warrant officers back in the 1950s. 

As Mike said, take a look at CAPR 35-5.  This is not a case of an outdated regulation simply needing updating.  CAP has Sergeants.

In some branches, an E-4 may very well be a Non-Commissioned Officer; in the Army and Marines, a Corporal (E-4) may be an NCO.  Since CAP allows for all former military NCOs to have NCO status in Civil Air Patrol, not just former Air Force, there needs to be an E-4 NCO grade in CAP.  "Three-stripers" senior members in CAP are Sergeants, not Senior Airmen.  The chart above is correct as originally posted. 

Our grades ARE based on that of the AF, they are just horribly out of date & behind the times (who would have spent time worrying about what to call an E-1 to E-4 that joins CAP & wants to keep his grade, I'm not sure it's happened, certainly not enough to cause an issue, especially since they are considered SMs by NHQ & all the rest is done locally).

Speaking of FO grades... is that just flat age descrimination or what? I mean there is zero training to become a 2Lt & it's exactly the same for FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massivly increasing the standards & training for officer appointments to nearly mirror the national guard, and i'd include being 21 in that, but as it is I don't understand it. You know you can be an AF officer at 18 right? As long as you have that degree & complete an officer training program, the only age restriction is that you be old enough to join the military & under 35 I think it is for a line commission.

I've heard this shpeal on correct abbreviations for grade before. Let me tell you that the ones listed are the correct abbreviations for the AF & CAP, & in fact the traditional military abbreviations the world over. The excuse given there about bits & bytes in a computer documents - a la the year 2000 bug kinda thing - is EXACTLY why the Army when to the three letter codes. Frankly, I don't see the big deal. Anyone remotely familiar with the military should be able to understand what either abbreviation means & not be phased by it in the least. Now, if you're writing official memoranda then hell yes do it right (as described above & in regs), but if you're talking about a personal pet peeve or discussion on a place like this, then chill out!!!!

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 01:50:45 AM
Speaking of FO grades... is that just flat age discrimination or what? I mean there is zero training to become a 2Lt & it's exactly the same for FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massively increasing the standards & training for officer appointments to nearly mirror the national guard, and i'd include being 21 in that, but as it is I don't understand it. You know you can be an AF officer at 18 right? As long as you have that degree & complete an officer training program, the only age restriction is that you be old enough to join the military & under 35 I think it is for a line commission.

I may be going out on a "small" limb but I don't know many 18 year olds who have a degree that would qualify them to be an officer in any US service!!!

Yeah I know that, but as far as the military is concerned, it's the degree & NOT the age that matters. Frankly if I were on the OTS selection board for doogie there I'd ask him why he doesn't pursue a masters or enlist first for a couple years, cause it would be hard for an 18-20yo to demand the respect needed to lead troops. In CAP though, we'll take a ditch digging moron (trust me on this, I got one in my Sq) and make him an officer, while we'd take a 20yo w/ an associates & a couple years as say a fireman & he wouldn't be good enough? That's screwed up.

Let me be clear here in saying I don't think we should actually make 18yos into 2Lts. It just draws attention to the fact that it takes nothing to become an officer in CAP & they probably aren't ready anyway. I'd rather see real requirements to be an officer regadless of age - like a couple years college & work experience plus some letters of rec & an interview just to start a 12-18mo OTS cycle. I just wonder if anyone can legitimately defend it the way we have it now.

I agree that we need better ways to train officers. Just showing up for 6 months and you are a 2d Lt.

The biggest problem that I see if that CAP is a hybrid organization – military auxiliary and a corporation – with separate missions that appeal to different volunteers.

Other paramilitary organizations have general only one role – USCG Aux (boating, homeland security – non-conflicting missions), Naval Cadets (no ES, only cadet program) and American Cadet Alliance (cadet programs).

I am not an expert on American Cadet Alliance but their application and training programs for Officer Candidates is very detailed with many requirements before commissioning. (They even saying commissioned in their materials where CAP Officers are appointed.)

Back to defending the current CAP system, it makes some sense for pilots who only wanted to fly but does not for Officers that want to be involved in the Cadet Program. Again, other organizations have different "grade" structures to accommodate for that.

Again in the American Cadet Alliance material they refer to these as Civilian Instructors (except from ACAINST 1120.2A)

Civilian Instructor (INST). Appointment as a Civilian Instructor may be granted to individuals who wish to participate in ACA activities in a non-military and civilian capacity. This category of membership is extremely flexible in its requirements and is perfectly suited for parents, teachers, nurses, first aiders and individuals with specific skills or abilities. The application process is not as intensive as required for commissioning or appointment. Civilian Instructors have no military authority over other members of the officers' Corps, yet are eligible to fill any support billet (administration, supply, public affairs, etc.) within unit. Militarily, an instructor is subordinate to all uniformed members of the Officers' Corps, and senior to all Cadets. Instructors are considered to be members of the ACA Officers' Corps for administrative purposes only. Instructors are not eligible for command of a unit. They may only serve in administrative including training administration), supply and public affairs billets within a unit. They may not serve as the officer in Charge of a Detachment or a Pre-commissioning Unit.

It may not be perfect for CAP but may be something that could be a future model for CAP Officer training and development.

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 01:50:45 AM
Our grades ARE based on that of the AF, they are just horribly out of date & behind the times (who would have spent time worrying about what to call an E-1 to E-4 that joins CAP & wants to keep his grade, I'm not sure it's happened, certainly not enough to cause an issue, especially since they are considered SMs by NHQ & all the rest is done locally).

Perhaps you don't get it.  Our grades are based on the USAF, but the last time I checked my membership card, we are not the USAF itself.  If our grades were actual USAF grades, flight officers wouldn't exist either.  Maybe your opinion is that we should align completely with the USAF, which is a fine opinion; but it's not where we are now.  And that's not how CAP regs are, either.

The regulation about CAP having Sergeant's is not out of date.  It was updated in 2004, and up until now nobody has seen it needed to change that.  You know why?  Because CAP's NCO corps recognizes NCOs from all military branches.  And... funny that... *gasp* not all military branches do it exactly like the Air Force!!!  ( Oh no!  We can't be The Sometimes USAF Aux if we're not exactly like the Air Force! Nooo! )

CAP recognizes the NCO status of all NCOs, and that includes E-4s in the Army and the Marine Corps.  If they want to join CAP as an NCO... the NCO that they are... we should treat them the same we treat all other current and former military NCOs.  In addition to that, E-4s could have been NCOs in the US Air Force in the past, and there have been people who retired or left the Air Force as E-4 NCOs, and who held the title "Sergeant."  Face it -- Our NCO corps is very different... violently different... from that of the Air Force just on the basis of how it works.  Should it surprise you that one rank is called Sergeant instead of Senior Airman? 

By the way, E-1 through E-3 can't join the CAP NCO ranks, contrary to your statement, and E-4s can't join unless they were an NCO.  Pay less attention to the pay grade and more attention to the fact that CAP is trying to recognize Non-Comissioned Officers in our program with a commensurate grade, regardless of their military pay grade.

It's not out of date; it's perfectly in line with how our NCO corps currently works, regardless of how well or poorly that NCO corps is structured.  And that's probably how it will stay.

One small nit to pick, Navy E-4s are NCOs, too. BTDT, with the shirt.  ;)

Lt, I'm not taking any offense at this at all, but that was a little condescending in tone don't you think? I've been in CAP a long time, joined as a senior member in 94, and I am in the military, in the Army in fact & hold one of those lowly enlisted grades, at least till the morons give me some wings.

I said BASED if you'll read what you quoted from me. The fact is that particular item has not been updated since the AF did away with the grade of Sgt, and it's not for the justification you used, but rather cause no one ever thought of it as an issue cause it just doesn't come up. With the exception of career NCOs who don't ever want to be an officer, most enlisted folks that come to CAP & wear their stripes only do so till CAP grade kicks in after six months, and regardless it's a locally managed thing that isn't recorded or recognized at NHQ, so even if it were an issue they'd never know about it. However, we are BASED on the AF, they are our parent, we do spring genetically from them, and we are dead w/o their continued & enthusiastic support... so yes, I prefer that we follow their example to the fullest extent reasonably possible, & use a little common sense along the way.

Capt,
Help me out here, I'm not sure I understand your logic. Cadet Programs officers would be pretty much first in line. Most of them would. There's a few about I'd prefer to see in  that civilian instructor role, but mostly they'd go by the wayside. ES would be a mixed bag. There's the gung ho crowd that'd be happy to get on board, and there's the flying club that thinks we're a SaR hobby club & the AF happens to be one of our many customers. That'd be an issue, but the NIMS standards coming out will whack some people around pretty good so I'm not so worried on that front. Part of what we came up with was actually that like the military the officer grades would be primarily managers & the enlisted or warrant side would be mostly operators, so the pilots that just want to fly wouldn't be pressured to help w/ AE for cadets & such. It's the left over pile that would be a problem. The civilians that come into CAP & aren't particularly wild about the military or Cadet programs or ES, but they hang around for years anyway. Some of them are useful & some are not, but officers they ain't. By the way you know ACA & the brits use almost identical systems? We covered both in depth in developing an AOTS model.

Sorry this got drug off topic by the way. This should have been a separate thread. Didn't mean to get all into this, just sort of happen.

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 03:16:05 AM
Yeah I know that, but as far as the military is concerned, it's the degree & NOT the age that matters. Frankly if I were on the OTS selection board for doogie there I'd ask him why he doesn't pursue a masters or enlist first for a couple years, cause it would be hard for an 18-20yo to demand the respect needed to lead troops.

Doogie had an MD  ::)

I'm personally happy being an SFO for right now. Even when I turn 21, I'm gonna feel funny putting Captain's bars on my collar, simply because it's the same grade that the readeals wear, and I'm not really 100% sure I've earned the right to be called Captain yet, other then I did the training needed.


I'm funny like that though.

Hmmm...my Honorable Discharge certificate on the wall from the AF says I am a Sergeant.  My DD214 lists me as E4 Sergeant.  My NCO Appointment letter and certificate says that I am a Non Commissioned Officer, aka Sergeant.

Of course the Army says I am a E4 Specialist but that is another story in itself.

I've been a Senior Airman.  Been there, done that, even have the T-shirt to prove it.  Not going backwards.

The E-4 as NCO thing may have something to do with your Geneva Convention Classification (used to be in the small print of your green ID card).  I noticed that mine changed when I went from E-3 to E-4, and again when I went from E-5 to E-6.  I'm not sure of the significance, but I was told that it has to do with how you are treated as a POW.   

Quote from: Al Sayre on November 28, 2006, 06:49:58 PM
The E-4 as NCO thing may have something to do with your Geneva Convention Classification (used to be in the small print of your green ID card).  I noticed that mine changed when I went from E-3 to E-4, and again when I went from E-5 to E-6.  I'm not sure of the significance, but I was told that it has to do with how you are treated as a POW.   

I doubt it. The NCO discussion was around before we got the GC Classifications on the ID cards. I worked for the AF when they had SrAs AND Sgts, and the whining was rampant because there were folks getting E-4 pay who weren't considered to be NCOs.

I remember those days, I had an SrA buddy that couldn't get in the NCO club...  Like I said, I not sure how the whole thing came about, but I do remember much whining on the part of the USAF guys.

Quote from: SJFedor on November 28, 2006, 11:34:18 AM

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 03:16:05 AM
Yeah I know that, but as far as the military is concerned, it's the degree & NOT the age that matters. Frankly if I were on the OTS selection board for doogie there I'd ask him why he doesn't pursue a masters or enlist first for a couple years, cause it would be hard for an 18-20yo to demand the respect needed to lead troops.

Doogie had an MD  ::)

I'm personally happy being an SFO for right now. Even when I turn 21, I'm gonna feel funny putting Captain's bars on my collar, simply because it's the same grade that the readeals wear, and I'm not really 100% sure I've earned the right to be called Captain yet, other then I did the training needed.

I'm funny like that though.

I felt the same way coming over from the FO ranks to 1Lt, which was only cause paperwork was slow. I had maroon SFOs from the box, then had to buy gray SFOs at conf, then never put them on, had to barrow some 1Lts slides till I made Capt. That whole process sucked.

Quote from: captrncap on November 28, 2006, 02:50:41 AM

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 01:50:45 AM
Speaking of FO grades... is that just flat age discrimination or what? I mean there is zero training to become a 2Lt & it's exactly the same for FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massively increasing the standards & training for officer appointments to nearly mirror the national guard, and i'd include being 21 in that, but as it is I don't understand it. You know you can be an AF officer at 18 right? As long as you have that degree & complete an officer training program, the only age restriction is that you be old enough to join the military & under 35 I think it is for a line commission.

I may be going out on a "small" limb but I don't know many 18 year olds who have a degree that would qualify them to be an officer in any US service!!!

There is a law prohibiting 2nd Lt rank to anyone not yet 21.  We had a girl in my OCS class that was accepted based on the projected completion date of the class being after her 21st birthday.  When something happened to move our graduation date like 9 days early, the staff had to go all the way to the Deaprtment of the Army for permission to "Frock" her as a 2LT, and her date of rank was the day following her birthday.  That way she could graduate and pin on the bar with us, but she was restricted from exercising any command or authority (or collecting pay) until her rank was actually effective. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 30, 2006, 02:39:24 AM

Quote from: captrncap on November 28, 2006, 02:50:41 AM

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 01:50:45 AM
Speaking of FO grades... is that just flat age discrimination or what? I mean there is zero training to become a 2Lt & it's exactly the same for FO. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massively increasing the standards & training for officer appointments to nearly mirror the national guard, and i'd include being 21 in that, but as it is I don't understand it. You know you can be an AF officer at 18 right? As long as you have that degree & complete an officer training program, the only age restriction is that you be old enough to join the military & under 35 I think it is for a line commission.

I may be going out on a "small" limb but I don't know many 18 year olds who have a degree that would qualify them to be an officer in any US service!!!

There is a law prohibiting 2nd Lt rank to anyone not yet 21.  We had a girl in my OCS class that was accepted based on the projected completion date of the class being after her 21st birthday.  When something happened to move our graduation date like 9 days early, the staff had to go all the way to the Deaprtment of the Army for permission to "Frock" her as a 2LT, and her date of rank was the day following her birthday.  That way she could graduate and pin on the bar with us, but she was restricted from exercising any command or authority (or collecting pay) until her rank was actually effective. 

Army http://www.goarmy.com/ocs/applications_eligibility.jsp (http://www.goarmy.com/ocs/applications_eligibility.jsp)
At least 19yo at time of selection, & it ain't no 2-3 year program.

National Guard here SAYS it will take you at into OCS at 18, but that's active duty basic followe dby 18months of one wknd/mo & 2wk/yr OCS, then at least six months to recognition, and even that's BS cause you aren't getting selected unless you have some great skill they need or are already an enlisted tropp in the unit that sponsors you... still it's doable under 21 in the right circumstances.

I don't know about AF or Marines, I've never heard of any minimum age for selection. I can see it not working in your favor with the board, but there is no reason for it to be a requirement.

Quote from: DNall on November 28, 2006, 03:16:05 AM
... cause it would be hard for an 18-20yo to demand the respect needed to lead troops.

Funny,  I didn't have any respect problems leading troops (ours and others) in combat in that age bracket.

Y'all talking about the exceptions rather than the rule. Yes, there are those who blast through all the requirements for a commission by the time they're 18 and are awarded a commission in the military. HOWEVER, the vast majority (99.999997%) of new officers don't fall into that category. It has also been noted that it takes a fairly high level approval for it.

CAP doesn't have that need. The 18-21 age backet has always been odd. Legally an adult. Culturally maybe an adult, but not likely. Given the ability of CAP to enforce some of its own rules - or lack thereof - the age waiver for a 2d Lt in CAP doesn't make sense. The AF appearently wants CAP to limit officerships to the 21 and up crowd, therefore, you need to be at least 21 to be a 2d Lt or higher in CAP.

There's no such restriction in the AF. You're able to enlist at 17 w/ parental consent or 18 w/o. That is the minimum age requirement to be an officer in the AF (if anybody can find anything different let me know). You can see the Army requirement I posted there is 19 when entering the 3month process (OCS) to become a 2Lt. Not just the AF, but the whole military considers the education & intelligence demonstrated in a degree to be a qualifier, not age. There is only a maximum age, and then only for retainability reasons.

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. Causing them to put aside that part of their personaility & conform to a military hierarchy requires an attitude adjustment that is so far beyond CAP's ability. Allowing that situation to exist would not favor good order & discipline, which you can talk crap about if you like, but if you don't have it in the field people WILL get hurt. You can also say grade is meaningless but rank via ICS in a mission is not, but what you let in your head in garrison will still be there in the field. Trust & mustual respect doesn't come with a job title. Let me ask you then, what's different about that situation & if the younger kid is 22-25 & a Captain?

I've NEVER seen any idication from the AF that they've ever even thought about 18-21 yos holding CAP officer grades. That is a CAP creation to disguise to the AF the low standards to become a CAP officer. It looks stupid to have a bunch of 18yos woalking around w/ officer grade, but then no less stupid than an all-officer ground team or a bunch of 60yo Lts. It's smoke & mirrors.

I understand why the 18-21 folks aren't made officers, and I appreiciate the practical psychology behind it. What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

Wall - Head. Head - Wall. Play ni.. the heck with it. I'm outta here.

Quote from: DNall on December 01, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

I like the way you think!

Quote from: arajca on December 01, 2006, 05:07:12 AM
Wall - Head. Head - Wall. Play ni.. the heck with it. I'm outta here.

I'm not sure I saw the failure to play nice. Frustration perhaps with a troubled system I care about & want to see succeed in spite of itself, and perhaps a willingness to be slightly & respectfully confrontational to make people look outside a box. But, never disrespectful or failing to play nice.

Quote from: DNall on December 01, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on on-line modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cause ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

Personally, I like the idea of all of us becoming Flight Officers with five grades (FO1, FO2, CFO3, CFO4, MFO5) corresponding to the current Senior Program Levels.  Then granting grade to duty positions based on command positions (Sqdrn CC -  1st Lt initially, Capt after 18 sequential months in command and Level 3; Group CC - Maj, LtCol after two sequential years in command and Level 4) with their deputies one grade below.  Revert back to the appropriate FO grade upon giving up command / deputy commander.

This would give us a very military appearing organization to outsiders and reward those doing the tough jobs.

Think of how easy it would be to figure out who are the commanders at an activity.  It's also easier to say that I am Master Flight Officer Smith and my squadron commander is 1st Lt Jones rather than it being LtCol Smith working for 2nd Lt Jones to an outside agency.

Trung Si Ma

Well I'd prefer to stick with actual military grades rather than once again running off in our own direction & making things up that don't mean anything to outsiders, especial the AF who we are supposed to be modeled off of.

As to officer grades by position - a la CGAux - I don't personally like that much for a number of reasons, not least of which is it goes out the window at a mission were that Sq CC is probably a GTL working for a some kind of FO at IC. It also does nothing to change our membership, just the titles we foist on them. I actually want to change the people.

I'd like to see the standard membership with an altered version of the current adult program in enlisted or warrant officer grades. And then select prime volunteers from that pool to endure intensive professional training as officers, mirroring as nearly as reasonably possibel the standards for AF officers of the same grades (academic content from OTS, PME & merit based promotions from there tied to the same kinds of TIG as the AF uses)... It's not that complicated, but if we're going to be part of the AF family & expect to help them do anything important, then we ought to be able to function as officers with similiar standards. If we want to grow & move forward in partnership with them, then we have to get on board. You'd get a military appearing structure that way because 2Lts aren't qualified to command units, and people that are actually qualified to be LtCols will be working at other levels. Your mission operators are going to be enlisted/warrants that focus on the job, but the staff back at base is going to be officers with extensive leadership & mgmt training that have exposure & limited experience in those field specialties, but it was just a stepping stone to running operations. That's how the real world functions & where I think we need to be aiming.

Quote from: DNall on December 01, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. 

There are plenty, especially in CAP, "50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business" who have trouble finding mission base, let alone actually leading anyone, and the "I'm 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business..." attitude is exactly the problem with many of our members. 

They are "50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business, and don't know thing one about ES or the military, but believe their 75 hours PIC makes them God's gift.

An inability to check their ego is an operational liability, and either they learn or they leave, at least while I have a say.

It's an ADCON liability as well. We don't literally have force of law behind our grade, so the only meaning it has is what we assign it & culturally enforce on each other. That becomes nothing when that guy with a chip on his shoulder thinks he's better than a more experienced younger member & fails to support good order & discipline. For the same reason I don't really like some of the advanced appointments we make. Do we really need to make pilots a Capt right off the bat? or lawyer gets LtCol in a couple years or whatever, that's an insult to people that spend 15 years working up to that point.

The OTS we talked about on the portal req'd to get a slot, either a 4yr degree or 60hrs w/ EMT/hamm/pilot/2yrs professional experience related to being a staff officer. Then you end up a 2Lt & you sure earned it & respect others that have also. We did actually talk about doctors & lawyers that deserve to be appoitned up (capt & 1Lt respectively) and recognizing their time constraints, wanted to run a less time intensive course for them like the military does, but when they got done they would remain JA or HSOs & could not command units or line personnel until they go on to complete a couple more courses. to get caught up with their grade.

I'm telling ya, I really think this would work to run an enlisted or warrant corps & train professional officers that the military can respect & see a shared standard in.

The problem is that CAPR 35-5 contains a typo or faulty information.  It is in fact in conflict with other CAP regs when it comes to NCO grades.

1. There is CAP Grade of Sgt... our grade is based on USAF if you haven't noticed and us having Flight Officers is a thing of necessity, not choice. If you disagree, check for what grade insignia a CAP equivalent of E-5 (Sergeant) would be and get back to me.
2. Only blue USAF chevrons are authorized for wear for CAP NCO's and the insignia covers only SSgt, TSgt, MSgt, SMSgt, and CMSgt.  There is NO insignia for Sgt (3 stripes is SrA). If you're still confused, check the old cadet grade insignia vs. new cadet grade insignia.  It mirrors the USAF just like our officer grades do.
3. Sgt E-4 doesn't exist and hasn't existed in USAF for years.  The Army has E-4 Corporal NCO's, but Sergeant is and always was E-5. It's the same for USMC.

I understand your urge to follow pen and paper instead of common sense, but sometimes you have to resist my friend.  Especially in CAP where manuals and regulations get updated about once a decade even though they should be updated every year or so. The regulation in question was updated in 2004, but VERY apparently someone forgot to update that specific paragraph. Perhaps we should bring that to their attention and hope that the 2014 revision contains the change.

Right I know that, but the enlisted or warrant corps discussed above is not prior service but rather civilian CAP members. Thereby raising the bar substantially for what it takes to be an officer & advance... I'd say somewhere around 80% of what it takes to hold the same officer grade in the AFRes/ANG.

Quote from: DNall on December 01, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
There's no such restriction in the AF. You're able to enlist at 17 w/ parental consent or 18 w/o. That is the minimum age requirement to be an officer in the AF (if anybody can find anything different let me know). You can see the Army requirement I posted there is 19 when entering the 3month process (OCS) to become a 2Lt. Not just the AF, but the whole military considers the education & intelligence demonstrated in a degree to be a qualifier, not age. There is only a maximum age, and then only for retainability reasons.

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. Causing them to put aside that part of their personaility & conform to a military hierarchy requires an attitude adjustment that is so far beyond CAP's ability. Allowing that situation to exist would not favor good order & discipline, which you can talk crap about if you like, but if you don't have it in the field people WILL get hurt. You can also say grade is meaningless but rank via ICS in a mission is not, but what you let in your head in garrison will still be there in the field. Trust & mustual respect doesn't come with a job title. Let me ask you then, what's different about that situation & if the younger kid is 22-25 & a Captain?

I've NEVER seen any idication from the AF that they've ever even thought about 18-21 yos holding CAP officer grades. That is a CAP creation to disguise to the AF the low standards to become a CAP officer. It looks stupid to have a bunch of 18yos woalking around w/ officer grade, but then no less stupid than an all-officer ground team or a bunch of 60yo Lts. It's smoke & mirrors.

I understand why the 18-21 folks aren't made officers, and I appreiciate the practical psychology behind it. What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

Is there a response in there somewhere?  ???

Quote from: DrJbdm on December 05, 2006, 10:40:54 PM

Quote from: DNall on December 01, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
There's no such restriction in the AF. You're able to enlist at 17 w/ parental consent or 18 w/o. That is the minimum age requirement to be an officer in the AF (if anybody can find anything different let me know). You can see the Army requirement I posted there is 19 when entering the 3month process (OCS) to become a 2Lt. Not just the AF, but the whole military considers the education & intelligence demonstrated in a degree to be a qualifier, not age. There is only a maximum age, and then only for retainability reasons.

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. Causing them to put aside that part of their personaility & conform to a military hierarchy requires an attitude adjustment that is so far beyond CAP's ability. Allowing that situation to exist would not favor good order & discipline, which you can talk crap about if you like, but if you don't have it in the field people WILL get hurt. You can also say grade is meaningless but rank via ICS in a mission is not, but what you let in your head in garrison will still be there in the field. Trust & mustual respect doesn't come with a job title. Let me ask you then, what's different about that situation & if the younger kid is 22-25 & a Captain?

I've NEVER seen any idication from the AF that they've ever even thought about 18-21 yos holding CAP officer grades. That is a CAP creation to disguise to the AF the low standards to become a CAP officer. It looks stupid to have a bunch of 18yos woalking around w/ officer grade, but then no less stupid than an all-officer ground team or a bunch of 60yo Lts. It's smoke & mirrors.

I understand why the 18-21 folks aren't made officers, and I appreiciate the practical psychology behind it. What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

     
      OK, I'm new to these forums so I'm trying to get the hang of it all. First let me say that I agree with DNall completely on this subject of professional standards to be a CAP Officer.

I took a look at the website for the American Cadet Alliance and looked at the requirements and procedures to be an Officer in that group. Now that group is in no way belonging to any military service like we are. However they have some good standards for being an Officer there. It's a long process and it takes time. Currently CAP is very inclusive, meaning we will accept pretty much anybody and in six months we will make them a 2Lt. regardless of there: education, maturity, age (over 21), background, and leadership potential.  CAP is a part of the US Air Force and it has been since the Air Force was created, No other organization can claim that. We are also the only military organization that I know of that has a actual role in US Govt. Emergency Services. Yet we have NO standards for membership or to be an Officer. Here's what I propose:

1) Take some of the same standards that the ACA uses for Officers and use them here.
2) require college education to be an Officer (I prefere a Bachelors Degree but will settle for 60 hrs)
    perhaps waive the degree requirement IF the member is a senior Military NCO and wishes to become an Officer. or a former cadet officer who attained at least the Earhart Award.
3) People with technical skills that are needed in CAP (IE: Pilot, radio operator, EMT/paramedic (w/o degree) can be appointed as a warrant officer or flight officer or whatever term national wants to use.
4) Have an Officer selection board at the Wing level that includes at least one Air Force Officer on it to look over and approve Officer applications.
5) once approved they will become Officer Canadates and wear blank slides on the uniform and move thru the OTS process. (ECI-13, modified AF OTS program-look at AFIADL for ideas, they should also attend an encampment or be trained in formal classes at the squadron level taught by CAP Officers. the process should take no less then one year to 18 months.
6 require the Officer Canadates to meet the CAP weight/grooming standards prior to commissioning.

   Now those who wish to be members and assist in the squadron but not be an Officer can be brought in as Uniformed Instructors. they would also have to take level 1, cadet protection, and perhaps SLS. but they wouldn't be able to earn any of the Officer awards that we have now like we have now. they wouldn't be eligible to serve as unit commanders or deputy commanders but could fill in on any other staff position IE:personnel,finance,safety,ect.

I know this maybe controversial to some people, but face it we NEED to have higher standards for our Leaders while also being inclusive enough for general membership. However we do it we really should have some of the same standards that the ANG or AF has for Officer selection. Not everyone in CAP needs to be an Officer. make them Uniformed Instructors or whatever you want to call them. But we have to create credibility in CAP and having high standards is a great start.

The requirement that all Officers meet grooming and/or height and weight standards will reduce the membership by a very large percentage. Otherwise I lean towards agreeing with your post.
The old ECI had a Officer Candidtate Course way back, and there wouldn't be much of a problem to rewrite it and bring it up to date for CAP. Level 1 is basically a useless waste of time for new members. The information they need to know is not included.
Taking a CFII and telling him because he doesn't have a degree he can only be a Flight Officer is counterproductive. Yo'll be driving people away from CAP in the long run

  Well if that CFII joined to fly cadets or to fly missions then whats wrong with making him a SFO or CWO or something if he doesn't meet the standards for being an Officer. My point was that we need real standards in CAP for our Officers.  Did we all join to serve or did we join to become Officers? I think it's great we are able to allow alot of people to serve but do they all need to serve as Officers? Having standards raises our perception by the AF and the public. Perception IS reality. It's just the way the world works.

Why does this discussion seem familiar?

Quote from: DrJbdm on December 05, 2006, 11:18:52 PM
OK, I'm new to these forums so I'm trying to get the hang of it all.

It's cool... Was just trying to see if there is something I can help you with.

I've got the popcorn...

So here is a question, what do we do with everyone right now? If you have a CAP Lt.Col who has no degree or special ability, but has put in his time and completed the requirements what do you do then? I agree that we should raise the bar for everyone who wants to be an officer, but we need to consider who we have now. If we grandfather them in, is that fair to the new members? It would be a nightmare to manage and I think a killer for recruitment.

The one idea I have is to make the AF courses mandatory for promotion and not in place of CAP in residence. The AF has SOS via correspondence and then they take it in residence as well. Maybe we do away with RSC and NSC and see if the AF will open the in resident courses to us. That way all professional development mirrors what is expected of AF officers. Last time I checked NCS is done by AF officers anyway. SOS, ACSC, and AWC are all held at Maxwell just like NSC. It would put the decision in the hands of the individual as to how far they want to progress. Just an idea. I think it would raise the view of the AF and AF officers on CAP officers.

Just a side thought, being here on an active duty base, I here the term "real Officers" a lot. It of course comes from active duty folks and I find it offensive. Our squadron has more than 50% of active or retired officers as members. Even a retired o-6. People still don't see it in that light however. I, myself, have a degree, I have been active duty, attended SOS, and have performed command duties. How does this not make me a real officer? It may be in CAP, but my sliver bars are not less sliver. I am not talking about commanding active duty troops or anything like that, but in the since of the word I am. Most don't realize what we have to do to make grade. I do believe that if they see us sitting in the same classes they do it would raise our image and possibly help in the respect department.

Unfortunately, if they see us sitting in the same classes they take, they are more likely to wonder "Who the heck are these guys, and what AD Officers slot did they steal?"  Also, for USAF in residence courses, the problem is numbers.  CAP has a very high turn over rate, how many new CAP 2d Lts can the USAF afford to feed and house for a week at a time, and how will it affect the slots for their new 2d Lt's?  Same goes for the other courses, the USAF just simply isn't prepared to pick up training for around 30,000 CAP Officers.  I wish they were, but reality raises its ugly head...

I think it would be great if we could do resident courses in an Air Force setting.  As far as slots and cost, make it space available and charge members room and board.  I think the turn over would be less if members were given the opportunity to do more, especially in the beginning stages.  It's far better than saying, "congratulations, you're an Officer, please show up every Wednesday evening from XXXX to XXXX hours and oh yeah, take this correspondence course sometime between now and this time next year."

Quote from: mmouw on December 06, 2006, 05:29:41 PM
Just a side thought, being here on an active duty base, I here the term "real Officers" a lot. It of course comes from active duty folks and I find it offensive. Our squadron has more than 50% of active or retired officers as members. Even a retired o-6. People still don't see it in that light however. I, myself, have a degree, I have been active duty, attended SOS, and have performed command duties. How does this not make me a real officer? It may be in CAP, but my sliver bars are not less sliver. I am not talking about commanding active duty troops or anything like that, but in the since of the word I am. Most don't realize what we have to do to make grade. I do believe that if they see us sitting in the same classes they do it would raise our image and possibly help in the respect department.

Personnally, I don't care for the "real officer" term either. I use the term "commissioned officers". The truth of the matter is that CAP officers have not gone through the same schools as commissioned officers have, and we do not have the commision that they do.

One thing that most of the active duty folks do not know is that we do have the opportunity to take Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Air War College by correspondance. I think if many of them knew that, we would probably rate a little higher in their opinions.

One problem I see with requiring the AF in-residence courses is that a lot of training would occur that has nothing to do with CAP.  As much as some folks may like to be, we are NOT the military.  We really don't need training on warfighting, and it may be counterproductive.

I can see requiring certain levels of assignment before being promoted.  I would also understand requiring service at the next lower level of organization before you can take a position.  Maybe you could also require a certain grade/service requirement before being allowed to take a command position.

Of course, all of this runs into the problem of then being able to fill positions.  Often, a position is filled only because someone agrees to do it, not because they are qualified.  We do have to remember that we are made up of unpaid volunteers who have other lives.

Quote from: mmouw on December 06, 2006, 05:29:41 PM
So here is a question, what do we do with everyone right now? If you have a CAP Lt.Col who has no degree or special ability, but has put in his time and completed the requirements what do you do then? I agree that we should raise the bar for everyone who wants to be an officer, but we need to consider who we have now. If we grandfather them in, is that fair to the new members? It would be a nightmare to manage and I think a killer for recruitment.

 

 Here's what I think. If you raised the standards as I suggested, there is a small problem about what you do with our current officers, I think the only option would be to grandfather them in until such time as they leave CAP. Would it be fair for new members who want to join? I don't think so, it would aid in recruitment as they realize that CAP has done a major overhaul in their professional standards. Having tight requirements actually aids in retention and in recruitment. We all want to be a part of an exclusive group, a group thats highly respectable and professionally trained. I work as a Police Officer, and my Department has some high standards for it's officers, we require alot from those who want to be an Officer but we have found that we have more people who want to join and we have less turn over. My agency also has a non paid volunteer Police Officer division known as reserve officers, we make the reserve officers hold the same qualifications and training requirements as our full time officers, they wear the same uniform and preform the same job. We have no problem recruiting those reserve officers. High standards for being a CAP officer isn't going to hurt recruitment or retention, it Will have just the opposite effect. Those who can't meet the new standards to become a CAP Officer could still serve CAP in all non command functions and they can still be a part of this great organization. Not everyone NEEDS to be an Officer. But we do need Officers who can be leaders.

   As for allowing CAP Officers into the same in-resident USAF courses? I would LOVE to see that happen, however I just don't see it being very realistic, maybe someone knows how to work it, but thats above my pay grade. Good Idea non the less. I do LOVE the idea of making ALL CAP Officers who want to be promoted to take all the USAF professional development courses. I would also go one step further.. a good first step would be making all Officer Canadates (as I'm guessing we're calling SM w/o grade) take the ECI-13 and the ANG Officer course offered thru AFIADL BEFORE they can be considered for promotion to 2LT. thats an easy first step fix for this problem. it raises standards fairly until a more permanant fix can be created.

Agreed, we are all unpaid professionals, but yet still professionals. The in residence courses offer more than war fighting theory. They provide valuable management and leadership information. They also help us to understand what our big brother (AF) is and how they see things. If you have not had active, guard, or reserve experience, then how would anyone know unless you take these. The correspondence courses are the same as the in residence.

As to taking seats away from active duty, I don't think that would be a big problem. If the active duty folks are curious about us, GREAT!! The more people we are exposed to the better. Either they might be interested in joining or be able to bridge the gap between us and the rest of the AF.

I also understand that people have lives of their own and not everyone can afford to take the time, but that has not stopped National from moving the NSC around to different areas. You still have to attend it at Maxwell. As far as funding goes, there is always options.

Here's what I think. If you raised the standards as I suggested, there is a small problem about what you do with our current officers, I think the only option would be to grandfather them in until such time as they leave CAP. Would it be fair for new members who want to join? I don't think so, it would aid in recruitment as they realize that CAP has done a major overhaul in their professional standards.


I agree with you on that point. One question is where would we draw the line? Also what about former Officers from the military? I know that they would have most qualifications, but not all.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for this. I agree that we need to have our aces in their places. I do think that this is worth exploring.

I am glad I am not the only one who realizes that we have problems in CAP and we need to address them. These are all great ideas. As for what we do with former Military Officers who held a Federal Commission? thats easy they would come into CAP with the same grade they held in the Military up to the current regulations that CAP has. besides ALL Military Officers have a degree.

   The Texas State Guard had a major image problem a few years ago in that they didn't really have very many standards for being an Officer, I saw some guys in there who where Officers who really couldn't hope to be an Officer in the regular military, they suffered a big image problem. But in the years since they raised their standards to be an officer to the EXACT same requirements the ANG has to earn a commission including the age limit, now I'm not sure they needed to place an age limit as the AD forces have because they are a volunteer organization that doesn't have the same need for an age restriction as the AD or ANG forces do.  Now there is some debate as to rather or not they are really military or not. as far as I know they have NO privileges on any US military base, they can't go to any US military AAFES  clothing sales or to the BX. they can shop at STATE military bases where the Army National Guard is based. but from my experience those bases are small and don't have much in the way of Military clothing. But SDF forces are a whole different topic, and really doesn't concern us.

  To get back on track, they had a problem and they addressed it. we have a problem and National isn't addressing it, It just seems that they are LOWERING standards for membership which means they are LOWERING standards to be an Officer.  So you asked where do we draw the line? we draw the line when CAP moves to the new Standard and we then require all new members who want to earn a commission or appointment in CAP as an Officer to meet that standard. We could always waive the college hours or degree requirements for those former cadets who earned the Earhart award and waive it for those who where an E-5 or higher in the armed forces as they have leadership skills CAP can really use. we're still not being very exclusionary with those standards, we are just asking for a higher standard for our leaders.

   Look at the standards that other Cadet organizations have for their Officers like ACA or the USNSCC. they have standards that are alot higher then CAP's standard. Yet we do more and we interface with the AD military on a regular basis on a professional level as part of the total force concept, those other organizations can't claim that.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 06, 2006, 06:20:25 PM
One thing that most of the active duty folks do not know is that we do have the opportunity to take Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Air War College by correspondance. I think if many of them knew that, we would probably rate a little higher in their opinions.

I think we'd rate higher in their opinions if we were required to take said courses.

Many of the AF residence courses include clasified material, I know Air War College does. SOS is not just a week long course, it runs I believe a full year. There is no way a CAP member can afford to be away from work and family for a year. Since there is little or no diference between many of the Professional USAF residence and corrospondance courses, the corrospondance courses should be required, not residence.
And as far as current CAP officers, many got their promotions under the old system where SOS ACSC and AWR plus Industrial College of the Armed Forces (now National Defense University) were required for promotion. A degree was not required as long as the professional AF courses were completed. There are to many valuable members or prospective members such as A&P or CFII holders that may or may not have a degree. All new members should start as FO and take the AF corrospondance courses to qualify for promotion. The exception would be the former cadets with minimum of Mitchell for 2Lt. as is the current program.

Quote from: DrJbdm on December 06, 2006, 09:27:59 PMMy agency also has a non paid volunteer Police Officer division known as reserve officers, we make the reserve officers hold the same qualifications and training requirements as our full time officers, they wear the same uniform and preform the same job. We have no problem recruiting those reserve officers. High standards for being a CAP officer isn't going to hurt recruitment or retention, it Will have just the opposite effect. Those who can't meet the new standards to become a CAP Officer could still serve CAP in all non command functions and they can still be a part of this great organization. Not everyone NEEDS to be an Officer. But we do need Officers who can be leaders.

That is all and good and I agree with it for the most part.  However, there is a vast difference between your reserve police officers and CAP officers.  Your reserve police officers are expeceted to maintain the same standards as your "active duty" officers because (I assume) when called up they have the same powers and responsibilities as your regular officers.  And that is just not true of CAP officers.

We will always be looked down upon by AD USAF officers because we are NOT AD USAF officers.  But that is okay.  JAG officers and Medical Officers are looked down upon by line officers all the time.

Making it harder to become an officer is not necessarilly the way to go.  While a college degree is fine, and SOS and AWC and all the other training an USAF officer gets makes them better USAF officer....it is not really necessary for a CAP officer...even one in command.   

We can make our officers much more respecitble by providing constiant, quality and timely training across the board to all our officers and we can do this with out turning anyone away because of some lack of a college degree.

It would be better to build our own ECI course to take the place of SLS, CLO and the commanders course.  The USAF versions are just to USAF/AD orented to be of much use.  I mean in the AWC they plan and execute a complete air campaign.  This is just not something a CAP officer would ever need and it would take a very sharp experinced officer to learn how to translate the good stuff for AWC into skills he can use to run his own squadron/group/wing.

The in residence option just wont work.  Who will pay for it?  You are talking $50-$60 a day in lodging and meals, transportation cots and time off from work.  It would be nice...but just not cost efficiant.

No...it would be beter to consentrate and present our own CAP centric courses.  We need to teach SLS and CLP a lot more often by trained instructors on a regular basis.

There is someting to the argument that we should only promote those above and beyond the general membership.  I would not be opposed to every SM being just flight officers and only staff officers and commanders having officer rank.  This would go a long way to correct a lot of problems with the "rank means nothing" crowd and will solve a lot of problems the FO's are having now.

I will say...that requireing advanced education is NOT the way to go.  It is all good when you are talking about a 22 year old and giving him control of $15M airplane....but does not aways equate well when you are talking about a 40 year old buisness professional joining CAP for the first time.  You have to accept that life experince is sometime more important than a degree and that a BA is Advanced Basket Weaving does not make you ready for command while 20 years as a construction forman may be just the thing you want.

But the central question is: Does EVERYONE in CAP need to be an Officer? couldn't we have something along the same lines as what some of these other organizations have and still feel like we are not excluding anybody?

  I agree that life experience does play a part in the over all education and skill of someone. theres many major universities offering college credit for life experience these days so yes it is very worthy and in some cases may be an equivalency of a college degree.

  I think if you have a great technical skill as a Pilot, CFI or A&P we should make those individuals FO's unless they can meet some higher standard for being a CAP Officer. There is nothing wrong with having members who are not officers but still contribute fully to the CAP mission.

  I don't expect everyone to agree that CAP needs to have a college requirement to serve as a CAP officer but having college hours or a college degree does help CAP in many beneficial ways, I doubt there is anything wrong with requiring 60 hours of college education or the recognized equivalency of such as a requirement to being an Officer. Now the hard part would be in defining "The recognized equivalency" of college hours or a degree. I just don't think it's right to allow anyone to be a CAP Officer regardless of their education.. Now supposedly CAP requires a person to be a HS grad or have a GED, however when i joined no one requested a copy of my HS transcripts or my college or grad school transcripts. which means to me that someone could come into CAP as an Officer who has nothing but a 3rd grade education, now they maynot advance very far but still how good does it look to AF or to anyone else to have that person even wearing 2Lt bars?? We need to be just a little more exclusive to whom we allow to wear Officer grade. I personally think that at the absolute minimum everyone needs to start as a SM w/o grade or whatever we start calling them for ATLEAST one full year while they complete SLS, CLC and ECI-13 before being approved to be an Officer. Standards have to start somewhere. they are pretty non existent now.

On another board, I posted, and there was many pages of discussion on, a similar idea. To summarize:

Every joins as Instructor.
Those who just want to help the local unit, the current AEM's, and CSM's, stay as Instructors. They are restricted to support functions at the unit.

Those interested in ES and more activities can apply for a warrant. This includes pilots, EMS, non-bachelor medical professionals, former cadets (CAP and other), etc. Warrant grades include: WO, TWO, SWO, MWO, CWO.

Those insaneinterested in and willing to serve as staff/command types, as well as certain professionals, can apply for commissions. Commissioned grades include: 2d Lt, 1st Lt, Capt, Maj, Lt Col.

I also had a suggestion to allow PD promotion to Col, but that's an issue for another discussion.

Here is what I would do if I were god.

Everyone comes in at FO-1.  Level I, one year and a tech rating they get FO-2. Level II gets them FO-3, Level III get them FO-4, Level IV gets them FO-5 and level V gets them FO-6.

Pilots, lawyers, educators and all those other specialties will get advanced placement in the FO ranks similar to what we have today.

Level II and a squadron staff position gets you 2d Lt.
Level II and a squadron staff position for 2 years get you 1st Lt.
Level II and a squadron commander position gets you Capt.
Level III and a Group or Wing level staff position gets you Capt.
Level III and a group or wing level staff position for 3 years get you Maj.
Level III and a group or wing level Deputy position gets you Maj.
Level III and a group or wing level Deputy position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a group command position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a Wing Vice Command position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a Wing Command position gets you Col
Level V and a regional staff position gets you Lt Col
Level V and a regional command or vice command position gets you Col
Level V and a national HQ staff position gets you Lt Col
Level V and a national HQ deputy position gets you Col
Level V and Vice National Commander gets you BGen
Level V and National Commander gets you MGen

The key here...is that the level helps denote when a member should be ready to accept that position.  Only those who hold or have held command/staff positions will have rank....all other rank and file members will be FOs and will remain FOs for their careers.

All other considerations for officer rank can just go out the door.  College degrees, certifications....all those things just are not necessary.  We promote based on skill and achievement.  If a FO-5 steps up to the plate and takes on a squadron level job he get 2d Lt...if he steps up and takes a Wing staff job he goes straight to Capt.

This allows us to mentor our personnel and pull the most talented from where ever they be.

As for younger people earning their commission,
My oldest son went to the academy at age 17 and obtained his Navy commission just as he turned 21.  Now years later and an 0-3, he still has no leadership qualities. But, he has a commission, along with an academy college education.

Next was the oldest daughter who started college at age 16, joined the Army reserves at 17 and then finished her first college degree at age 20.  She turned down OCS and went to sandy-land as a combat engineer Sgt.   
She has leadership qualities.(as well as a couple combat action badges)  Now as an E-6 (25) she is thinking about OCS before her next deployment.

Audie Murphy was an undersized and uneducated kid from Texas.  He earned his Sergeant strips due to his leadership abilities.  He further EARNED a field commission.  Followed by the Medal of Honor before he was 21 years old.  He did not have a High School education.

Leadership qualities are not always found at the end of a four year degree.
Nor do chevrons instead of bars mean the lack thereof.   
There is nothing like watching the face of a young second or first Lieutenant  when he discovers that half the senior NCOs in the room have masters degrees.
My lovely bride has a Phd and was an Army NCO.
I've been on both sides and figure nobody ever listened to me until my hair turned gray.

Capt. Harris,

   I appreciate your ideas and in some ways I can agree BUT I find a few issues, first thats too much like the CG aux. and I don't agree with how they are run at all, they try to be distinctly non military in my opinion. But the real reason why your idea will simply not work is because of the PME courses offered thru AFIADL. You have to be a Captain to be eligible for AF SOS.  as for the other PME courses you need to be a major for the Command and Staff College and a Lt. Col. for the Air War College. Those are great programs that our Officers should be HIGHLY encouraged to take and in my opinion they should be REQUERED courses before you could be a wing cc or higher. Besides all three of those courses have been evaluated for college credit thru the American Council on Education. And if I remember correctly the Air War College was evaluated for 27hrs of Graduate credit (towards a masters degree). These are wonderful benefits that our officers have and they should be made available. So thats the reason why your plan simply wouldn't work.

Lt Meiners
I enrolled in Air War College when I was a Major. AWC doesn't seem to enforce the LtCol requirement for CAP.

Interesting, I may try that myself when I make Major. I'm very interested in pursuing those types of PME courses, Ultimately I would love to complete the National Staff and Command College and the AWC. First off I want to complete SOS.  I may try and enroll in the SOS when I promote to 1Lt even though your supposed to be a Captain. I'm due to be promoted as soon as I can complete the tech rating for Safety officer..... almost there. What was your experiences like in the AWC course?

AWC was an in-depth course, much of which doesn't apply to CAP. It will take you almost the full year to complete it. But it's a great learning experience. And you have to do a paper on any subject relating to the military or aerospace education. Mine I think ran 55 pages.

I do not understand the idea of make everybody a flight officer. Many people would like the military to show us a little more courteousy in relation to our officer positions, but I doubt anyone would take CAP seriously if we had a ranking system that no one else in the world understands or even knows about.

Also, if you have members in your unit that are not in a staff position, why do you have them? What purpose do they serve? My unit had three such members that never showed up. The commander gave them a month. Then they got transferred to the wing reserve squadron (or ghost squadron, or graveyard, there are a lot of different names for it).

As far as the ranking system goes, I'll throw in an alternative suggestion: How about "capping"? I'm not sure what else to call it. The basic premise is that if you don't step up; take courses; take valid command positions; don't make an effort to improve yourself; etc., then you top out at Captain. But it needs to be set up in a manner that doesn't necessarily screw over a person that actually is capable and wants a command, but can't get it for whatever reason.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 07, 2006, 04:58:16 AM
I do not understand the idea of make everybody a flight officer. Many people would like the military to show us a little more courteousy in relation to our officer positions, but I doubt anyone would take CAP seriously if we had a ranking system that no one else in the world understands or even knows about.

What's to understand?  The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything so why would anyone outside of CAP need to know what 'rank" they are?  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 07, 2006, 04:58:16 AMAlso, if you have members in your unit that are not in a staff position, why do you have them? What purpose do they serve? My unit had three such members that never showed up. The commander gave them a month. Then they got transferred to the wing reserve squadron (or ghost squadron, or graveyard, there are a lot of different names for it).

Well, we got a boat load of mission pilots, mission observers, mission scanners, we have various groups of mission base personnel and communications guys that do nothing for the running of the squadron but are there to be ready for the next mission.  There are a lot of people who just show up for the meetings and the SAREXs.  It is not that they don't want to help but in our case we don't really have a job for them and that if fine with them.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 07, 2006, 04:58:16 AMAs far as the ranking system goes, I'll throw in an alternative suggestion: How about "capping"? I'm not sure what else to call it. The basic premise is that if you don't step up; take courses; take valid command positions; don't make an effort to improve yourself; etc., then you top out at Captain. But it needs to be set up in a manner that doesn't necessarily screw over a person that actually is capable and wants a command, but can't get it for whatever reason.

We got that now.  Each level requires specific training and tenure in command staff positions.  It's not like if you stay in long enough you will become a Lt Col.  You got to complete the phases, comple the special tracks and serve your time in grade and in a staff position.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AMWhat's to understand?  The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything so why would anyone outside of CAP need to know what 'rank" they are?  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

So why create a ranking system that would be only "inhouse"? Seems easier to just not award any rank at all. I know it would make my personnel files easier.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AM
Well, we got a boat load of mission pilots, mission observers, mission scanners, we have various groups of mission base personnel and communications guys that do nothing for the running of the squadron but are there to be ready for the next mission. 

ES people, easy fix: warrant officers. Military treats them as technical specialists, I don't see a better way of describing our ES folks. They're good, and when it comes to volunteers, the best.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AM
We got that now.  Each level requires specific training and tenure in command staff positions.  It's not like if you stay in long enough you will become a Lt Col.  You got to complete the phases, comple the special tracks and serve your time in grade and in a staff position.

When it comes to just biding time, it really doesn't take much to make LTCOL. I'm only a captain, and I've only got two or three requirements for Level 4 to go. All it takes is just doing a little when the oportunity presents itself. I've had a command, and done staff positions as well, so personally I haven't been just biding time. I have however seen people that are doing just that.

I'm going to hazard a guess: if people don't fill command/staff and do the training levels, then they get a rank that isn't an officer rank. Is that the gist of your system?

And honestly, I'm trying to understand this concept, but so far, I don't see what it improves.

I think grade, and by extension rank should mean something a little more than it does.  I think CAP both in the many ways it awards grade and just the culture in general have made it not mean what I think it should.  Anyone can be a captain etc, for any number of different reasons... So then people start with position being more important than grade... and you have 2d Lt Squadron Commanders demanding due respect from a senior officer.

If you are gonna do it that way, then you might as well have something like the CGAux model where grade is based on postion... Don't call 'em a captain, call 'em a Squadron Commander... but unlike the Aux, you don't get to keep the grade associated with a past office, you wear the grade that directly correlates to the position you hold.

Quote from: MIKE on December 07, 2006, 03:40:41 PM
I think grade, and by extension rank should mean something a little more than it does.  I think CAP both in the many ways it awards grade and just the culture in general have made it not mean what I think it should.  Anyone can be a captain etc, for any number of different reasons... So then people start with position being more important than grade... and you have 2d Lt Squadron Commanders demanding due respect from a senior officer.

Squadron commanders are automatically promoted to 1st Lt.  There should be not 2d Lt Commanders.

Quote from: MIKE on December 07, 2006, 03:40:41 PMIf you are gonna do it that way, then you might as well have something like the CGAux model where grade is based on postion... Don't call 'em a captain, call 'em a Squadron Commander... but unlike the Aux, you don't get to keep the grade associated with a past office, you wear the grade that directly correlates to the position you hold.

Or we can keep with our current system and forget about rank meaning anything.  Why does it have to mean anything more than it already does?

I was a 1st Lt Commander with a Major in my squadron...never had any problems.  I am currently in a squadron with a Major commanding and we have a ton of Lt Cols and Col.  We even have a couple of retired one and two star generals in our squadron wearing Lt Col rank.

There is never a problem with subordination.

We default to positional authority not "earned grade" authority.  No problem.

I look at my Capt bars as a mark of my accomplishments not as a mark of my authority.

Now we could go an use the RAF rank structure, now that would be fun!

Pilot Officer
Flying Officer
Flight Lieutenant
Squadron Leader
Wing Commander
Group Captain
Air Commodore
Vice Air Marshall
Air Marshall

But then we would be back to a completely non standard rank system.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 04:07:02 PM
Squadron commanders are automatically promoted to 1st Lt.  There should be not 2d Lt Commanders.

Quote from: CAPR 35-513. d. Squadron Commander. Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of first lieutenant concurrent with the member's appointment as squadron commander. He or she becomes eligible for promotion to captain at the end of 1 year's service as squadron commander. NOTE: Commanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

Emphasis added.

It's not automatic.

Let me jump back in here for a second. I have a lot ot say, but I gotta run so I want leave you with one brief comment before I go.

This conversation started about three moneth ago, springing from something you'd think is totally unrelated, NIMS. I'm sure most of you have seen the data coming down th epipe on that. It's not a question of if, but when CAP will move to full NIMS compliance in our ES program. When that happens & you go to a major mission - say hurricane on the Gulf Coast - CAP will no longer be assigned missions by some agency & run our own little show out of some airport doing piss ant work. CAP will be one of a hundred cogs in the national response, and ANY NIMS qualified IC, or PSC, OSC, AOBD, GBD be they a national guard officer, a captain at your local fire department, or a CAP officer would fully qualify & could VERY easily be placed in those positions for the entire multi-agency federal or state response to the natioanl emergency. It's extremely concievable in the next 3-5 years that a CAP Major NIMS quald AOBD can be called on to deploy & relieve a national guard Major serving in the same position & with command over state/federal civilian planes/crews, guard/res/AD military aviation units, and CAP & CGAux Air too.

Is is possible for a CAP member w/ no outside experience in emergency response to fill such a role & deserve the followership of those other parties? Can they come to the table with the leadership ability necessary to take command of real military personnel & other paid professional responders? What basis does that guard Major have to believe this person is of equal standing, competence, & ability? Can we inspire those above that our people, not the exception but the rule, meet & exceed those standards enough that they should be called on for such roles?

In other words, the whole emergency response community, military & civilian, are teaming up under NIMS & there is the real possibility that CAP officers will be standing in for real military officers in command of parts of a national or state response to major emergencies. We need to be ready. The idea springing from that was it's easy to meet the NIMS requirements, but that provides nothing in the way of merit based promotion paired w/ AF PME to make leaders that can execute the NIMS training. So, we went about figuring how to follow the AF example to make legitimate officers, seen as legit by the AF & everyone else because they meet close tot eh same standards - 80% was the number we used.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AM.....The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything ...  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

You know, something just occurred to me. There is a rank series in the Air Force that pretty much describes this type of rank bracket.  I've been in that rank bracket. They're called "airmen".

Even if you call them "flight officers", they will still be the CAP equivalent to the good old USAF airmen. So why not just implement airmen in CAP? Even when they do get out of the yard, and someone in the AF sees them, it won't take anyone by surprise.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 07, 2006, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AM.....The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything ...  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

You know, something just occurred to me. There is a rank series in the Air Force that pretty much describes this type of rank bracket.  I've been in that rank bracket. They're called "airmen".

Even if you call them "flight officers", they will still be the CAP equivalent to the good old USAF airmen. So why not just implement airmen in CAP? Even when they do get out of the yard, and someone in the AF sees them, it won't take anyone by surprise.

I've given a lot of thought to some of these issues:

1) first, in terms of college degree requirement, probably should NOT be in place for CAP....instead, set standards, require ALL to meet them for promotion....set the bar fairly high, so that whoever can get over it measures up to the grade earned professionally, intellectually, in character and competence.

2) re-instate a full system of airman/NCO grades available to CAP adult members....put off the warrant officer/flight officer decision till this is up and running for several years....at various points in time USMC, USN and RAF have had enlisted pilots.....I know USAF never has, but perhaps CAP could!

3) 'grandfather' members in their rank at time of transition with two provisions:
            a) any further advancement demands meeting all new requirements
            b) offer the option for these folks to transition over to an appropriate NCO
                grade.....we have a fair number of people wearing bars & leaves who
                would really rather have stripes....they have more respect for AD NCO
                corps, and/or prefer not to be in line for command responsibility

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 07, 2006, 06:06:54 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 05:39:37 AM.....The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything ...  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

You know, something just occurred to me. There is a rank series in the Air Force that pretty much describes this type of rank bracket.  I've been in that rank bracket. They're called "airmen".

Even if you call them "flight officers", they will still be the CAP equivalent to the good old USAF airmen. So why not just implement airmen in CAP? Even when they do get out of the yard, and someone in the AF sees them, it won't take anyone by surprise.

There is nothing wrong really with making a CAP enlisted corps.  The only thing I can think of is, how do you translate five levels of training into 9 levels of enlisted grade?  Not that it can't work, it would be easier to just create a new category of rank for the rank and file SMs instead of trying to fit our current Professional Development track into an existing rank structure.

I also perceive that there would be a great reluctance on part of our current SM to a move to enlisted ranks.  A retired BG already has to take a demotion to Lt Col....how would he feel if we made him an AB?!

Another aspect to be considered....Airman and NCO's are note viewed by the public the same as officers.  It may seem strange to an outsider to see a SSgt running high position at a mission base.

And again we come back to the problem that the rank does not really mean anything.  A CAP CMSGT is just some guy who completed a certain track of training and never stood up to take command.

When viewed by an AD USAF enlisted member or officer we would still have a mis-match between perceived responsibilities and real responsibilities.  But if those same people see a FO-6, they can quickly understand that he is a highly trained technician/pilot/professional who does not hold command responsibilities.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 07, 2006, 06:45:48 PM
1) first, in terms of college degree requirement, probably should NOT be in place for CAP....instead, set standards, require ALL to meet them for promotion....set the bar fairly high, so that whoever can get over it measures up to the grade earned professionally, intellectually, in character and competence.

Wholy agree!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 07, 2006, 06:45:48 PM
2) re-instate a full system of airman/NCO grades available to CAP adult members....put off the warrant officer/flight officer decision till this is up and running for several years....at various points in time USMC, USN and RAF have had enlisted pilots.....I know USAF never has, but perhaps CAP could!

Actually the USAF used to have WO ranks. 

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 07, 2006, 06:45:48 PM
3) 'grandfather' members in their rank at time of transition with two provisions:
            a) any further advancement demands meeting all new requirements
            b) offer the option for these folks to transition over to an appropriate NCO
                grade.....we have a fair number of people wearing bars & leaves who
                would really rather have stripes....they have more respect for AD NCO
                corps, and/or prefer not to be in line for command responsibility

As I stated below....how would you translate the current CAP PD/Promotion system into one that uses the enlisted ranks.  And replacing one meaningless system of ranks with another does not really address the problem of that the rank does not match the level of responsibilty.  An active duty MSgt has a lot more responsibilites compared to a rank and file CAP member of any rank.

Quote from: davedove on December 06, 2006, 07:31:56 PM
One problem I see with requiring the AF in-residence courses is that a lot of training would occur that has nothing to do with CAP.  As much as some folks may like to be, we are NOT the military.  We really don't need training on warfighting, and it may be counterproductive.

I can see requiring certain levels of assignment before being promoted.  I would also understand requiring service at the next lower level of organization before you can take a position.  Maybe you could also require a certain grade/service requirement before being allowed to take a command position.

Of course, all of this runs into the problem of then being able to fill positions.  Often, a position is filled only because someone agrees to do it, not because they are qualified.  We do have to remember that we are made up of unpaid volunteers who have other lives.

The problem with the current SLS, CLC type courses is that they teach how the CAP corporation is run, they do not neccessarily teach leadership and management principles.  We need some type of prof develpoment that helps CAP officers learn to develope those leadership skills along with the corporate side before they command squadrons, groups and wings.

Quote from: ELThunter on December 07, 2006, 07:23:38 PM

Quote from: davedove on December 06, 2006, 07:31:56 PM
One problem I see with requiring the AF in-residence courses is that a lot of training would occur that has nothing to do with CAP.  As much as some folks may like to be, we are NOT the military.  We really don't need training on warfighting, and it may be counterproductive.

I can see requiring certain levels of assignment before being promoted.  I would also understand requiring service at the next lower level of organization before you can take a position.  Maybe you could also require a certain grade/service requirement before being allowed to take a command position.

Of course, all of this runs into the problem of then being able to fill positions.  Often, a position is filled only because someone agrees to do it, not because they are qualified.  We do have to remember that we are made up of unpaid volunteers who have other lives.

The problem with the current SLS, CLC type courses is that they teach how the CAP corporation is run, they do not neccessarily teach leadership and management principles.  We need some type of prof develpoment that helps CAP officers learn to develope those leadership skills along with the corporate side before they command squadrons, groups and wings.

Concure....but on that same thread....the USAF PME course are not the best fit either.  I definatly think CAP could benifit from a more robust PME training.

If you really wanted to do enlisted ranks for SM's, you could do it based on both level and ES Quals.

Example:  
AB = New Guy
Amn = AB+ Level 1 & CPPT+ Time in Grade (TIG)
A1C= Amn + GES + TIG
SrA = A1C+ UDF + TIG
SSgt = SrA + GT(1,2),MSA, MRO, MS, FLM (pick 1) + TIG  
TSgt = SSgt + Tech Rating + TIG
MSgt = TSgt + Level 2 + GT3, MSA, MRO, MO, FLS (pick 1) + TIG
SMSgt = MSgt + Senior Rating+ GTL, CUL, MO, IO, LO (pick 1)+ TIG
CMsgt = SMSgt + Level 3 + GBD, FRO, CUL, FASC, LSC + TIG

Master Rating = WO or FO rank or pehaps LDO status

Must transition to Officer for Level 4 & 5

IC, AL, AOBD, OSC, PSC and Chaplains would be limited to Officers only due to the nature of their jobs

Something along this line might work...YMMV

What about people who don't do ES?

Okay, let me give some of these issues a whack...

Grade system:
We talked about several versions & what came out as the best was to use the AF enlisted system in this way... SM = AB, Lvl 1-5 = Amn to TSgt, MSgt to CMSgt are reserved for prior service OR use in a 1Sgt system that functions like an adult version of CAC. For the !sgt version, it's an elected office w/ temp grade, can keep the grade (w/o diamond) though if complete thru Lvl 5 & serve satisfactory for one year. Obviously the PD program in the current adult program could drop sopme things that are related to what would now be officer functions, and can pick up other content from the NCO PMEs (ALS, NCOA, SNCOA) & more focus on specialization (CP, AE, ES-NIMS).

The officer side we had the requirements at 21 & a college degree. You could start OTS though at 18 & stay an officer candidate till you finish the program & turn 21. The education was waiverable with a combination of 60hrs/associates AND either a special skill (pilot/EMT/LPN/NASAR instructor/etc), OR two years of professional business experience that could be related to staff officer duties. The point of the education, like in the military system, is as a gatekeeper to ensure you aren't taking the guy that fell off the back of the short bus. It is one phase of professional education that proves you will be able to deal with the coursework we'll require of you, which will all be at & above college level.

In addition to those requirements, the applicant must put together a package with letters of recommendation & a writing sample on why they want to be a CAP officer & what they bring to the table (make your case). They are then intensively interviewed & the descision to let them into OTS is up to a board at Wg which includes the state director (or they can appoint a non-CAP prior service/res/ANG field grade officer) specifically there to represent the interests of the AF - right there is the consent of the AF to make this person a CAP officer, and that should carry some weight with outsiders.

The format is based on ARNG OCS. The program involves a Wg appointed mentor in combination with computer modules. It's programmed to run one year, but can be stretched as needed within reason (say up to 3 years) if the person is busy. The one year schedule involves about 8hrs per month on the modules, plus making 90% of Sq mtgs, where they will serve as an asst to a staff position in the specialty field they've chosen, doing what amounts to a very advanced year long SDA & resulting in a tech rating. The mentor should be supervising their personal development & application of learned officer skills to the staff role they are working (that means papers, speeches, presentations, staff studies, etc). The content from the modules is taken as nearly as reasonable from AF OTS. Some of those are avail online now, and others can simply be videoed & put on the CD set. Some of the AF related material will stay so we have a shared understanding of the parent org, but the technical stuff that doesn't make the jump will be replaced w/ CAP specific material & a light reading list.

When the Officer Candidate finishes that process, they do a one-pager on what they've learned & why they believe they're ready to be an officer, the mentor turns in a report of their progress, the same Wg level promotions board from before w/ the AF rep decides if they are ready or need to spend another six months working on any particular items. If approved, then the Nat CC issues a certificate of appointment that says basically the same thing as a military commission, the candidate raises hand & swears oath, done deal.

Officer Progression:
First & foremost, this is a merit based system. While there are requirements to be met, doing so doesn't promote you, your actions do. The same board at the Wg level would deal with everything thru Capt, Maj.s at Region, LtCols at NHQ, basically where the approvals are now. Mind you now these are independent boards where the members vote by secret ballot & are not answerable to anyone, so as little politics as possible.

The next thing you do in the AF is the Air & Space Basic Course (OBC in the Army). The goal of this course is to take the sheltered theory of an officer training program & mold it into the reality of commanding troops, & ingraining the warriror spirit/mission-focused attitude. The CAP version of this plus 18mos get you pretty automatically to 1Lt.

Next comes advanced specialty education. Where you may have had a tech in one specialty during OTS, you now focus on the broader mission area (CP, AE, ES). Continuing education means courses &/or reading & papers on advanced topics, the specifics would have to be worked out. The concept though is moving you away from specialization & on to a generalist leader that can take charge of larger situations. This & 3 years gets you Captain, agian basically automatic if you do what you're supposed to & stay active, but you can be delayed if you suck or aren't very active.

You do top out at Capt, everything after that is exactly the opposite of automatic. Captain to Major requires 5 years, SOS from AFIADL, and a CAP course. What I have in mind here is something like UCC, but more designed to develop & identify future commanders. It should be the thing that seperates the staff officer from the line commander, both can get promoted, but you know which is which after this. This should be the level at which you're looking for people to command units & take Serious Wg staff jobs. The promotion board for this is at Region & it is competitive. The number of slots for each board should be limited based on percentages. That is something like no more than 80% of the applicants shoul dbe getting thru on the first try & the percentage of majors in the force versus lower grades - that's how the AF works it, we just don't want to end up top heavy again with people that aren't qual'd.

Maj to LtCol is around 8 years (these TIG numbers are supposed to be linked to the AF progression rate), & requires ACSC, and a CAP course. Most of the content at RSC now comes from AF OTS. We can rework that to capture the in-res aspect of ACSC. By that I mean the development of in depth strategic thinking. This is where you learn to look at the bigger picture & apply the things in the ACSC correspondence couse to CAP as an organization. The Legal/Chaplain/IG/HSO staff colleges will stay in place & can push their content up with the better quality students they'll get. You're no longer an operator, you're an organizational leader that may from time to time go on a mission to keep current & connected with the troops. You must complete this level to be eligible for command of a Wing. If you do command a Wg w/ only this level of progression, you'll do so as a LtCol.

Next comes AWC. The paper done there will be directed from a reading & topic list provided by CAP so as to push strategic study of the direction of CAP & aspects of our operations. With completion of this AND assignment to one of our current Colonel slots, you make & keep Col. You are not elligble for Region CC, Nat CC or VCC or any of the national officer slots unless you have completed AWC. NSC can be dropped cause I think we'll have well passed it by by now.

That's it! Real close to AF standards, w/ a goal of producing officers at each grade that are roughly 80% as qualified, competent,  capable, etc as an AF officer of the same grade. AF has a rep on the promotion board that allows you into officer training & at every promotion level. Their job isn't to block anything, but to ensure that 80% AF standards mark is being upheld in each individual that passes their desk.

WOW.... DNall,  I want YOU as National CC!!

     Those are exactly some of the same things that I believe. If CAP is going to fully participate on the National or State level ES stage as a fully respected and valid member then we need to be capable of such. Right now I think alot of those people at that level, whether it's AD AF or ANG or Police Departments or Fire Departments view us as nothing more then a volunteer fire department that assists it's full time fire department by pulling hose. CAP bills itself as a fully mission capable asset to the National ES Homeland Security AF team but yet we fail to have even the slightest requirements to join.

  This is a sad but true fact, as of right now CAP will take anyone with a pulse, as long as he/she isn't a morally screwed up person. we will take such person and without regard to ANY other qualification we will appoint that person as a CAP Officer. Which means that the retarded kid down the street can join CAP and in 6 months be wearing 2Lt bars as a fully authorized appointed Officer in CAP/ USAF Aux.. Now ask yourself How does that sit with the people at the National or State level ES or Homeland Security agencies? or how does that sit with AD AF or ANG??? We have to hold our Officers far more accountable then what we do. Otherwise we will be viewed by these people as nothing more then a joke. We will find PLEANTY of people to recruit with the same wonderful standards as proposed by DNall. it would bring respect and legitimacy to the CAP/USAF Aux. If you can't meet the 80% rule then you can STILL serve but just not as an Officer. we are not turning anybody away with these standards, they can still join but just not as an Officer.

   Here's the thing, no one outside CAP really knows how our rank/grade system works. the public has no idea that CAP has NO NCO or enlisted grades and that ALL members are Officers. When they see the guy who fell off the back of the short bus wearing Officer rank they have to seriously question the ability of the CAP to operate in any capacity.

    Gentlemen, I do not intend to insult or offend anyone with my comments or my perceived lack of sensitivy towards those with problems, I'm only making a point. Forgive me if my comments offended anyone but do understand what I'm trying to say, CAP HAS to step up to the plate here in ES/Homeland Security roles and we can't do it realistically with the same structure as we have now. We need to change with the times, we have to first earn the respect of our AF  Parents or ANG counterparts. Thats what I'm saying.

DNall can I join your fan club?? lol.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2006, 10:59:22 PM
It would be better to build our own ECI course to take the place of SLS, CLO and the commanders course.  The USAF versions are just to USAF/AD oriented to be of much use.  I mean in the AWC they plan and execute a complete air campaign.  This is just not something a CAP officer would ever need and it would take a very sharp experienced officer to learn how to translate the good stuff for AWC into skills he can use to run his own squadron/group/wing.

However, rather than focusing on organization of CAP and outdated management theories like the existing professional development courses do, we should review the AF professional development courses and take what we can out of them that translates to developing a "professional" officer.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2006, 10:59:22 PM
No...it would be better to consentrate and present our own CAP centric courses.  We need to teach SLS and CLP a lot more often by trained instructors on a regular basis.

SLS is really just the bare basics of CAP in general and squadron operations in particular.  It should be just an entry level orientation course.  That ought to be taken just to pass level I.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2006, 10:59:22 PM
There is someting to the argument that we should only promote those above and beyond the general membership.  I would not be opposed to every SM being just flight officers and only staff officers and commanders having officer rank.  This would go a long way to correct a lot of problems with the "rank means nothing" crowd and will solve a lot of problems the FO's are having now.

Just because someone holds a staff position doe not mean they are more qualified, experienced,or better officer material than any other member.  In theory yes, but in practice, no.  Often times, staff positions are held by people that are minimally qualified but have the time to devote to the job.  The same can sometimes be said of commanders.  Which is part of the whole grade system gripe.  Many Captains, Majors, and Col.'s are around just because they were appointed to a command position and never were made to go through the professional development or time in grade hurdles the rest of us had to negotiate.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 06, 2006, 10:59:22 PM
I will say...that requiring advanced education is NOT the way to go.  It is all good when you are talking about a 22 year old and giving him control of $15M airplane....but does not aways equate well when you are talking about a 40 year old business professional joining CAP for the first time.  You have to accept that life experience is sometime more important than a degree and that a BA is Advanced Basket Weaving does not make you ready for command while 20 years as a construction forman may be just the thing you want.

I agree to a certain extent.  I think it's a little unrealistic for a volunteer organization to rule some people out of being an officer just because they do not have a degree.  A degree does not necessarily mean a person is smarter than someone without one, and life experience does count for a lot.  However, generally speaking, someone with a degree is more apt to have the knowledge base, speaking, writing and communication skills to be better prepared to hold command and staff positions, and will most likely be a better reflection on the organization.  It's just a better indicator if you don't have a lot more to go on.  While a 20 year supervisor may be more in line with an NCO in the military.

Quote from: MIKE on December 07, 2006, 08:28:09 PM
What about people who don't do ES?

Multiple Tech ratings + TIG?

I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.  My personal opinion is that people should be involved in all facets unless they have a medical issue that prevents it. (That's going to get me flamed...)

Even Aerospace?  :D

Thanks John, but that was a big team effort to come up with that plan. I'll say again that we WILL be moving to full comliance with NIMS. When that happens our officers WILL be placed in ICS command positions for multi-agency state & national response. CAP will not act independently as we've always done. there will be no CAP mission base. There will ONLY be the full blown big deal base & you could very well see a CAP Major in there as AOBD commanding the CG, ANG, ARNG aviation, Forestry service, state police, FEMA... the entire airspace  & every mission that occurs in it. Right now I hesitate to belive there is one person in all of CAP that's capable of doing anything like that, and if they are, it's not by benefit of anything they've done with CAP. We have to make real officers that can really command, & the perception from outside has to be that they are qualified, capable, & deserve to be followed by people that are being paid to be on that mission.


The current CAP PD program is just crap. It needs to be junked. SLS is second half of the first day entery level material. CLC is second day material. Streamline both & slam them into the LvL I course w/ CPPT & OPSEC. That & 5.5 months more gets you Amn, and you can apply for OTS while you're learning the basics.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 07, 2006, 06:55:04 PM

There is nothing wrong really with making a CAP enlisted corps.  The only thing I can think of is, how do you translate five levels of training into 9 levels of enlisted grade?  Not that it can't work, it would be easier to just create a new category of rank for the rank and file SMs instead of trying to fit our current Professional Development track into an existing rank structure.

We're definitely not on the same page, lordmonar. I didn't say enlisted, I said airmen. You're talking about putting the training levels into 9 ranks, I'm looking at a system of only four grades. (Yeah, I mean the first four.)

If these folks had no real authority to do anything, then they don't need a rank system created for them. Give them an airmen grade. There's 5 training levels for officers, but there really doesn't need to be a whole lot for a rank bracket that's doing grunt work. Enough to teach them the basics, and make them useful. They don't need ECI 13 or RSC to be useful.

Also, considering that CAP can't promote NCO's, I don't think that we should have our NCO promotion system. I think the existing system of only prior service NCO's would be fine.  If we do promote, then I don't think that we should go beyond the junior NCO ranks. It takes a lot for a military senior NCO to make it that far, I don't think we should just hand out what it takes them far more to earn.

Quotesay again that we WILL be moving to full comliance with NIMS. When that happens our officers WILL be placed in ICS command positions for multi-agency state & national response.

This will depend entirely on the relationship that CAP has built within the local and state emergency management community.  While some CAP members certainly could be farmed out as specialists in a multi-agency command staff, the system we currently have now for managing ES missions isn't set up to handle it. 

Say your CAP unit has the best Information Officer in a three county area and that he is so well respected by the local agencies they ask him to come in and run their Joint Information Center after a snow emergency of some kind in which no other CAP resources are needed or are being used.  For this to be done as an AFAM, you would have to open up an entire mission just for this one guy and information on his activities would need to be kept track of.  CAP and CAP-USAF isn't really set up to handle these micro-missions effectively.  I don't think it would take many tweaks to the system though to make it more feasible.

 

I'm not sure everyone understand what NIMS is or how it works. Once you are certified by them, CAP doesn't matter anymore. CAP just becomes the people that train you ouside of those missions & coordinate requests for your help. The IC staff can theoretically call you direct & sign you into the mission & never tell CAP anything till after the fact. There is no CAP mission. You work for FEMA or who ever the lead agency is & CAP doesn't have anything to say about it. If the mission allows for AF funding, then the IC staff should contact CAP-USAF, but CAP still doesn't have anything to say about it. What are they gonna cut my pay?

What's very liable to happen is CAP crews requested out of the NOC show up & sign into the FEMA mission. Then one of those PIC happens to have AOBD on his NIMS card & the Natioanl Guard Major they have in the slot has been up 36hrs straight w/o a break. So, congrats you're now in charge of all aviation assets in three states. It doesn't matter who you work for, no one know who the helll you or anyone else is, all they see is your NIMS card & that's all that matters. Your ability to back up those technical skills with actual leadership & mgmt skills is assumed. You see in a paid agency, they wouldn't let just anyone train for AOBD. It's be a senior officer who has already demonstated those abilities to command before tehy've been allowed to train in the technical skills. If we go this route in CAP, then we'll have more staff qual'd people than any other agency in the country & we'll have them distributed geographically - sound familiar to the way we sell our ES ops now? Trust me. It'll take a long time when CAP realizes how far it has to go to live in this world, but when it gets there, there will be no halfway, it'll be all or nothing.

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 03:40:18 AM
I'm not sure everyone understand what NIMS is or how it works. Once you are certified by them, CAP doesn't matter anymore. CAP just becomes the people that train you outside of those missions & coordinate requests for your help. The IC staff can theoretically call you direct & sign you into the mission & never tell CAP anything till after the fact. There is no CAP mission. You work for FEMA or who ever the lead agency is & CAP doesn't have anything to say about it. If the mission allows for AF funding, then the IC staff should contact CAP-USAF, but CAP still doesn't have anything to say about it. What are they gonna cut my pay?

No I don't think that is how it is supposed to work.  The NIMS system is supposed to just standardize how everyone works...so that if we ever do get called up for a big disaster we all know how to work and play together.  Just because you are ICS certified does not mean you into some big call up list.  And just because you sign in to a mission base does it mean you will ever be released from CAP control unless CAP agrees and there is a MOU spelling it out before hand.

If you get called out by FEMA as an individual....then you belong to FEMA not CAP.  If FEMA activated CAP....we are all there under the CAP umbrella....CAP may loan you out to the Unified Commander's Staff if you are some hot shot PAO guy or some other technical expert...but you are still part of CAP when that happens.

Also under a big operation all tasking of CAP assets will go through the CAP IC.  Once tasked out to say a task force or strike team...then you may be under the operational control of that leader.

The asset provider always retains some control of his deployed assets.  And the deployed assets still have to follow CAP rules and regulations.

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 03:40:18 AMWhat's very liable to happen is CAP crews requested out of the NOC show up & sign into the FEMA mission. Then one of those PIC happens to have AOBD on his NIMS card & the National Guard Major they have in the slot has been up 36hrs straight w/o a break. So, congrats you're now in charge of all aviation assets in three states. It doesn't matter who you work for, no one know who the hell you or anyone else is, all they see is your NIMS card & that's all that matters.

Wrong.  They may ask you to fill in...but they cannot task you to take over, no matter what it says on your card.  Until CAP releases you to the IC you are a CAP asset.  You do not belong to NIMS you belong to CAP.

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 03:40:18 AMYour ability to back up those technical skills with actual leadership & mgmt skills is assumed. You see in a paid agency, they wouldn't let just anyone train for AOBD. It's be a senior officer who has already demonstated those abilities to command before tehy've been allowed to train in the technical skills. If we go this route in CAP, then we'll have more staff qual'd people than any other agency in the country & we'll have them distributed geographically - sound familiar to the way we sell our ES ops now? Trust me. It'll take a long time when CAP realizes how far it has to go to live in this world, but when it gets there, there will be no halfway, it'll be all or nothing.

I think your scenario is very improbable....and has nothing to do with the rank and file CAP member only those holding high ES credentials.  Your average AE guy who does not do any ES jobs but is a great leader and manger and has all the abilities to run a 50 person squadron does not need all the AWC and advanced training to take over for an Active Duty or Guard Major on a major disaster response.

So...you want to change the whole way we train our officers on the off chance that maybe one of them will be called up to take over the job of a trained professional?  If the job is so difficult and requires such qualifications...how would we be able to certify them in the first place?  We don't make up the training requirements NIMS does.

No....I understand what you are trying to say...and I agree with it to a very small degree.  But we are talking changing the system that would lock out 50% (just a wag) of our members of being able to take any leadership positions so that the one in a thousand chance of one of our members getting called in to take over for a paid officer.

You do the cost benefit analysis.  Sure, we need to make sure that the guy who is AOBD qualified is really qualified.....but just because you are qualified to run a 3-4 aircraft SAR does not mean you are qualified to run a multi-state inter-agency DR op....no matter what it says on your card.  On the other hand just because you have not got a BA in Advance Basket Weaving, gone to OCS, ASBOC, SOS and AWC by corrospondance, does not mean you don't have the leadership skills and organizational abilities to pull off a Katrina. 

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 03:40:18 AM
I'm not sure everyone understand what NIMS is or how it works. Once you are certified by them, CAP doesn't matter anymore. CAP just becomes the people that train you ouside of those missions & coordinate requests for your help. The IC staff can theoretically call you direct & sign you into the mission & never tell CAP anything till after the fact. There is no CAP mission. You work for FEMA or who ever the lead agency is & CAP doesn't have anything to say about it. If the mission allows for AF funding, then the IC staff should contact CAP-USAF, but CAP still doesn't have anything to say about it. What are they gonna cut my pay?

First, NIMS is not an organization. NIMS is a system of standards to help ensure emergency personnel meet certain minimum qualifications. NIMS does not certify anyone. Your agency certifies you as NIMS qualified using the rules and standards laid out in the NIMS documents.

Quote from: NIMS FAQThe National Incident Management System provides a consistent nationwide template to establish Federal, State, tribal and local governments and private sector and nongovernmental organizations to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity, including acts of catastrophic terrorism.  NIMS benefits include a unified approach to incident management; standard command and management structures; and emphasis on preparedness, mutual aid and resource management.

You do not 'belong' to NIMS. You 'belong' to CAP.

Second, unless you're on a specific call-out roster, you are not going to be called out directly. If you are on that roster, either there is an MOU coveirng that or you are not called out as part of CAP. IC staff can request a fire engine from a fire dept, but they have specific procedures to follow to get it. They do not the engine co. directly and order them to report to the incident. The same principle applies to CAP resources.

Third, who you work for depends entirely on ho the MOU's and agreements are structured. If you are called in as a CAP resource, CAP can withdraw you at any time. The Agency Representative has the authority to commit or withdraw organization resources.

QuoteWhat's very liable to happen is CAP crews requested out of the NOC show up & sign into the FEMA mission. Then one of those PIC happens to have AOBD on his NIMS card & the Natioanl Guard Major they have in the slot has been up 36hrs straight w/o a break. So, congrats you're now in charge of all aviation assets in three states. It doesn't matter who you work for, no one know who the helll you or anyone else is, all they see is your NIMS card & that's all that matters. Your ability to back up those technical skills with actual leadership & mgmt skills is assumed. You see in a paid agency, they wouldn't let just anyone train for AOBD. It's be a senior officer who has already demonstated those abilities to command before tehy've been allowed to train in the technical skills.

So you're saying the IC would take an ordered resource out of service because the PIC is an AOBD. Not likely to happen. One factor is that a resource can charge time from the moment it accepts the order to the moment it arrives at home, regardless of whether it is used on the incident or not. In an incident the scale of which you're talking about there will be at least one, and probably more, Type I overhead teams in place. The people on these teams are trained and qualified for the job, and for the most part, their day job is similar to their OHTeam job, and the team comes with deputies and assistants for the major functions. Additionally, you're most likely looking at an area command structure, not a single incident structure. 

QuoteIf we go this route in CAP, then we'll have more staff qual'd people than any other agency in the country & we'll have them distributed geographically - sound familiar to the way we sell our ES ops now? Trust me. It'll take a long time when CAP realizes how far it has to go to live in this world, but when it gets there, there will be no halfway, it'll be all or nothing.

On this point, we agree.

Hello All,

Taking this out of the theoretical and into the reality of the situation let me say how fortunate I am to live along the Gulf of Mexico and have had the opportunity to work real life hurricanes and floods pretty often since joining CAP in 1993.  Things have changed since the early days so I'll only discuss the last 3 big ones.

The Emergency Operations Center at the County and State level are in contact with many agencies.  CAP has a desk, telephone and high-speed internet on the front row of the control room.  We are in the first group called to report for the agency briefings...in fact, we are prosecuting photo fly-back missions days before the event. 

The only people at the Mission Base who are wearing "uniforms" are the National Guard guys and us...everyone else is  wearing multi-pocket pants and camera vests for all the crap that you have to tote around.  Nobody gives a hoot about who is a Capt or Lt or Indian Chief...Some of the agencies have really cool matching tee-shirts with their agency's name across the back, but the leaders are listed on a mission status board and it's obvious who they are because if you need to know then you will know.  If you don' t know who the movers and shakers are then it's simply because you don't have any reason to know.

The agencies represented are the Red Cross, Salvation Army, local school district (they have a whole pile of buses), power companies and utilities companies, water companies, waste management, ambulance services, national guard, army reserve, police/fire departments, local ham operators, in-house media, mapping, local and state emergency management, and a host of assorted players.  It resembles a trade show.  In the early days of the event, I am the CAP Agency Rep/AOBD/MP/bottle washer and if you happen to read the PAO discussion group you can see my letters from the Gulf.  As the mission develops, I fly up to the State Mission Base and pick up the other CAP folks who will be coming down to assist.  Our local folks help where they are able, but are primarily busy with preserving their personnal property before the event.

The very earliest missions are often flown as a Corporate mission until the money flow starts.  CAP is working hand in hand with the State EMA.  The Tracker 2000 computer system generates the mission taskings.  If it is an air operations, the IC will say to me, "Pearce, got somebody that can fly?"  We are all there together for the duration, sleeping on the same cots, eating the same hamburgers and chicken sandwiches, drinking the same coffee.  No body is throwing their weight or rank around.  My Ground Teams may be working along with National Guard troops in manning food/water distribution points and assisting in the transportation of patients from hospitals or nursing homes. If I'm flying, I may be briefing with State Helos, National Guard Blackhawks, Coast Guard Falcons and then coordinating with the Marines for a squak code and frequency to contact the P3 that's controlling the area.

During Katrina, my communications people were setting up days before the rotary oscilator became soiled.  I was flying the minute the winds died enough to get airborne.  We operated out of our home base as it is a half hour flight across the bay so our tasking came by radio to our local comm guy from the mission base at Stennis.  Heck, during one of the times that we needed to fly a photo mission and our aircraft was dispatched to another area, one of my guys chartered a 1928 Travelair and shot out of the open cockpit.....we don't need no SDIS to get it done.....IN FACT, many of the SDIS shoots were actually fly-back missions because the system had proven to be less than reliable and also very expensive as the air-time that the contract is written for had become used up.....you think that cell overage is expensive!

CAPR60-3 recommends quarterly meetings with the agencies who do emergency services.  Get to know the folks, train with them, go to the briefings, and be visible.  It has been said before in this thread but cannot be stated strongly enough, choose your representatives well.

Semper vi, y'all....

Stephen

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 08, 2006, 12:33:13 AM
We're definitely not on the same page, lordmonar. I didn't say enlisted, I said airmen. You're talking about putting the training levels into 9 ranks, I'm looking at a system of only four grades. (Yeah, I mean the first four.)

Also, considering that CAP can't promote NCO's, I don't think that we should have our NCO promotion system. I think the existing system of only prior service NCO's would be fine.  If we do promote, then I don't think that we should go beyond the junior NCO ranks.

It's an interesting idea.  It would be nice to see new Senior Members who have no prior CAP or military experience be required to spend more time in the organization before giving them 2nd LT bars.   

The enlisted rank structure, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to change.  We'd have to create CAP distinctive enlisted grade insignia before we could do anything.  That is the only way we could allow someone with no military experience to wear the Airman chevron let alone promote.    Personally I'd like to see it, if not for more than promoting current NCOs.  It really does suck that a former (or current) military NCO cannot promote within our organization (unless the military does the promoting) while someone with a pilot's licence gets 1st LT then Captain then Major.  While we all know 1st LTs who've held that grade for eons, at least they can promote if they applied themselves.

At least the cadet rank structure makes sense.  You know Cadet Officers have been in the organization a while and had been Cadet Airmen once.

Quote from: Psicorp on December 08, 2006, 02:45:09 PM
It's an interesting idea.  It would be nice to see new Senior Members who have no prior CAP or military experience be required to spend more time in the organization before giving them 2nd LT bars.

We've had a number of various ideas for the various "candidate" ideas. If someone is going officer, have them wear an "OCS" or "OTC" type insignia instead of grade, until they reach those bars.

As far more time in to the bars, I don't think more time is really necessary. What I think is necessary is more training. Three hours and new clothes do not an officer make. And I think that we should delve into our history a little bit more for what that training should be.

As far as whether the additional training would be worth it, I remember a commercial from the 70's. "Long hours. Low pay. Difficult language. Join the Peace Corps". You know what it did for their recruiting? People that showed up were a lot more serious about it when they knew there was a challenge.

Quote from: Psicorp on December 08, 2006, 02:45:09 PM
The enlisted rank structure, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to change.  We'd have to create CAP distinctive enlisted grade insignia before we could do anything.  That is the only way we could allow someone with no military experience to wear the Airman chevron let alone promote. 

I've seen that question of distinctive enlisted SM insignia, with the same responses of: "We don't need to design our own enlisted ranks", or else "What would our enlisted stripes look like."

I still say the answer is an easy one. You make the background of the stripes the same color as the current officer epaulets, and those SM NCO's wear the same gray nametag the officers do. The stripes wouldn't be that hard to get, just tell Vanguard "Hey, we're about to spend some more money on insignia." I have a suspicion that the turn around would be rather quick. The insignia would be pretty easily recognizable as an airman or NCO, but the color would indicate that this person is somehow associated with the Air Force in a uniquely different way.

It's n ot necessarily that we CAN'T promote NCO's but that we DON'T promote in the NCO ranks.

Our rank structure is built on the officer ranks.  The NCO status is only for those ex-NCOs who for one reason or another do not want to be officers.

That does not mean we can't go to the USAF with a plan to use the enlisted ranks (including NCO) intead of the O ranks.

With that said.....I am not advocating for a CAP enlisted corps (except maybe for the cadets).  I think Flight Officer rank would more than suffice for the rank and file Senior Membership.  It has the advantage of being easy to produce, not require any new insiginia (just more on the same thread) and it not piss off any active duty NCO's.

The problem remember is that our rank structure today does not mean the same thing as we thing the ranks should mean.  I.E. a CAP Capt is not the same as a USAF Capt....going to NCO ranks or even Airman rank would just be replacing one misconception with another.

If we go with a totally different rank system that still as the flavor of the USAF we solve this problem and still have a way of rewarding our rank and file membership.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 08, 2006, 05:06:48 PM
It's n ot necessarily that we CAN'T promote NCO's but that we DON'T promote in the NCO ranks.

Our rank structure is built on the officer ranks.  The NCO status is only for those ex-NCOs who for one reason or another do not want to be officers.

That does not mean we can't go to the USAF with a plan to use the enlisted ranks (including NCO) intead of the O ranks.

With that said.....I am not advocating for a CAP enlisted corps (except maybe for the cadets).  I think Flight Officer rank would more than suffice for the rank and file Senior Membership.  It has the advantage of being easy to produce, not require any new insiginia (just more on the same thread) and it not piss off any active duty NCO's.

The problem remember is that our rank structure today does not mean the same thing as we thing the ranks should mean.  I.E. a CAP Capt is not the same as a USAF Capt....going to NCO ranks or even Airman rank would just be replacing one misconception with another.

If we go with a totally different rank system that still as the flavor of the USAF we solve this problem and still have a way of rewarding our rank and file membership.

What exactly would the insignia that you're proposing look like? If it's a variation on the current FO insignia, then about the only flavor that might show would be Air Force Academy, or McPeak's rank insignia. I don't think either would be taken very seriously.

As far as rewarding the rank and file membership, how do you figure? "Welcome to Civil Air Patrol. Congratulations, here's your FO-4 rank. Oh yeah, we know, nobody has any idea what it is, we made it up, don't worry about it, it doesn't really matter anyway."

And how exactly does it have an "Air Force flavor" when it never existed in the Air Force?

We're not going to move forward by re-inventing the wheel here. We will get far more respect from the Air Force by emulating them in some ways, not by separating from them. (Something which is happening right now, no telling how that's going to turn out.)

But the point being....rank and file flight officers do not have to be take seriously. (in the sense that you are using the word)  Not any more seriously than they would be take seriously as a CAP SrA.

First we would not be offering anyone FO-4 off the back...they would be FO-1, no advanced promotions for ratings, skills, or anything.  The FO ranks only denote the member's progression through the PD program.

That would seperate the rank and file from the leaders.

And for you historically illertate types....the USAF has had Flight Officers and Warrant Officers in the past.

As far as moving forward by re-invention.....is that now what this whole thread is about?  If you want to move forward...don't change anything....but improve the quality of the training we are currently supposed to be getting.  Provide the officers in the feild with more opportunities to get the training and look for more ways to present the necessary leadership training.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 08, 2006, 06:41:35 PM
But the point being....rank and file flight officers do not have to be take seriously. (in the sense that you are using the word)  Not any more seriously than they would be take seriously as a CAP SrA.

First we would not be offering anyone FO-4 off the back...they would be FO-1, no advanced promotions for ratings, skills, or anything.  The FO ranks only denote the member's progression through the PD program.

That would seperate the rank and file from the leaders.

And for you historically illertate types....the USAF has had Flight Officers and Warrant Officers in the past.

As far as moving forward by re-invention.....is that now what this whole thread is about?  If you want to move forward...don't change anything....but improve the quality of the training we are currently supposed to be getting.  Provide the officers in the feild with more opportunities to get the training and look for more ways to present the necessary leadership training.

The way I'm kinda looking at it is that I don't see a reason to create a new grade system. Someone from the Air Force or other branch seeing an airman knows what it is. Someone seeing an FO4 would have no clue.

I don't know what anyone might think, but I'll throw out an outlined concept of what I think we could do with enlisted. This is a rough concept, so bear with me.

1. Non staff personnel that have no desire to do anything would get airmen grades. They would receive a basic primer on CAP's missions. Promotions would be time in grade primarily, with a little education on doing something useful. These airmen would be highly encourage to adopt a staff position, and move on further. If they didn't, they would top out at SrA. In other words, you don't put much in, you don't get much.

2. NCO's would only be prior service NCO's. Direct grade conversion to CAP. As far as positions, I don't know what to say, there is so much experience there, I don't know how to quantify it.

3. Misson pilots, scanners, obbservers, other mission personnel that do only that get warrant officer grades. But only if that's all they're doing. If the same folks are doing staff positions, then they work with O grade.

4.  A. Officer candidates start out with "OTC" (officer candidate course). Six months, and about 80 hours (actual time, not college type hours) of training to include some general officer skill, leadership, drill, C&C, etc. Not just four hours, and some new clothes.

     B. Continuing education would be more in depth, with a lot of focus on working with other agencies. Definitely continuing in leadership.

That's the basic rough concept I have. Not reinventing the wheel, but smoothing it out for a better ride. The idea of no enlisted puzzles even the military folks. Officer ranks should be earned with a little more work than what we have now.

NIMS
Actually, NIMS is now putting out certification standards rather than just a list of quals. That's correct though that your agency (CAP) certifies to them that you've completed those quals, & they assume the liability if that's found not to be the case. I understand that because of inconsistency & the legal questions that creates, that they are moving toward issuing NIMS qual cards.

CAP will call out resources directly via the NOC, but that's not necessarily the only way, and yes as an individual you can walk up & show certification, they will put you to work & it doesn't matter if you are a CAP member or not or that CAP knows anything about you being there.

I agree the overhead command structure will be staffed, I was trying to give a simplified example. Yes, the actual case would be more like a CAP aircrew on downtime that has a certified member able to step up on that team, or take over operations at a sub-level on the fly. you see this kind of thing hapepen almost as the rule rather than the exception on CAP missions, and it does occur at times on joint missions. I'm really less concerned with being able to run a national response, & more with being able to run a joint response between say CAP, the sherriff's dept, varrious county FDs, etc. CAP isn't now remotely qual'd to do that, even though we have by far the most experience of anyone in that group running a major SaR. I'd also like to be able to run a joint mission with CG & walk into the one mission base & see at least some of those lead positions held by CAP members. It will take time and each of these things is a stepping stone, as we prove ourselves at one level we'll be more generally accepted & given the opportunity at the next level. Eventually that leads to people taking major role in major incidents, and that should be the goal.

Anyway, this is just one EXAMPLE of why CAP officers need to meet professionally competent standards of leadership set by the outside world, not based solely on what's required in a 20-50 person Sq.

Justification:
I think if you'll ook at ES, you can see the need for strong leaders to interact with other agencies, the public, and to motivate our troops to efficiently go find people waiting for rescue. We too often go out on a mission thinking we're looking for a a false alarm or a pile of aluminum but that there's no one leaning against a tree bleeding out while they wait for us to get our act together. I think it's pretty easy to see how that lack of taking it seriously crosses into an assumption that we don't need well trained officers to lead people to do the best job.

2% (guessing) maybe of CAP officers are ever legitimately involved in AE, and what do they do? They're either working with cadets or they're out in public representing CAP & the AF to the world & other org. I think what you expect from that officer is to be able to step into a crowd & subtlely take charge so as to diplomatically lead them to solutions desirable to CAP & the AF.

In Cadet Programs I think it should be easiest to see. Look at the ACA officer standards, the officer standards for CAP-style programs in UK & other places. Cadets come to us cause they want in the military, and they quit when the officers over them or the program around them doesn't live up to that expectation. You job in that role is to take teenagers & change who they are, their character, what they're dedicated to, etc & end at a target goal that's good for the AF & the country. You can't do that if you aren't a great officer & know the techniques & formal kind of leadership psychlogy you're supposed to be teaching.

That should be some internal reasons for you. I don't think it's hard to see external ones... earn the respect of the rank-in-file AF as peers so we can earn their trust & belief that we can deal with complex gear on critical missions, so that we can become part of the total-AF concept & actually start doing missions for America & quit wasting everyone's time & money. There's a few more, but that should be key.


NCO Grades:

Quote from: lordmonar on December 08, 2006, 05:06:48 PM
-snip-
not require any new insiginia (just more on the same thread) and it not piss off any active duty NCO's.

The problem remember is that our rank structure today does not mean the same thing as we thing the ranks should mean.  I.E. a CAP Capt is not the same as a USAF Capt....going to NCO ranks or even Airman rank would just be replacing one misconception with another.

If we go with a totally different rank system that still as the flavor of the USAF we solve this problem and still have a way of rewarding our rank and file membership.

FO grades are not the same flavor as the AF. There was a VERY short time when aviation cadets were called flight officers, but that was quickly & correctly done away with. That process springs from the pre-WWII AAF, in which pilots were viewed as specialist who did not particularly need to be leaders. For the last 55-some-odd years candidates first learn to be leaders as they become an officer, and THEN are allowed to train in their secondary field as a pilot. There is no place for FO grades in association with a professional seperate AF. You can use the warrant officer grades the AF also carried over from the AAF, but those too are not highly appropriate. If we're trying to fit in with teh AF family so that they will trust us with greater responsibility in the family business, then it is appropriate for us to stick to the example they set for us - that means enlisted grades, and there's nothing wrong with it.

The only thing that pisses off AD or prior-service NCOs about a CAP NCO corps is fear. They believe there are some good members in CAP & some crap. If you make the best 25% officers then what's left behind may be offensive to NCOs. My answer to that is two-fold. First, a lot of the crap is going to fall away when this quits being a free ride & they don't meet the standards, but they'll be rapidly replaced by a whole new crew of people interested in being part of a professional org that gets the job done & really is part of the AF family - ask Iowa what they've seen since their reorganization. Secondly, It's not particularly the top 25%. Being an officer under this system means less time in the field, less f all the fun stuff, and more responsibility at every level. It's a very time consuming process with less reward. A lot of people are going to choose the enlisted side over being an officer because they have no interest in committing to meet those challenges. The NCO side won't be a free ride either though. The current PD is modified by removing officer responsibility items & putting in content from the NCO PMEs, and you are much more intensely trained in your field so that you really are an expert specialist. After you get done telling them that, then explain to them that what we require now for LtCol only gets you TSgt (or MSgt, we can debate that if you like).

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 08, 2006, 05:02:10 PM
I still say the answer is an easy one. You make the background of the stripes the same color as the current officer epaulets, and those SM NCO's wear the same gray nametag the officers do. The stripes wouldn't be that hard to get, just tell Vanguard "Hey, we're about to spend some more money on insignia." I have a suspicion that the turn around would be rather quick. The insignia would be pretty easily recognizable as an airman or NCO, but the color would indicate that this person is somehow associated with the Air Force in a uniquely different way.

That's a pretty good idea, as is the red prop/triangle/circle replacing the star or jus the prop inside/over the star. Really if you can take the actual AF stripes & just embroider something over them, that'd be the most financially manageable route. I'm willing to put a range of ideas to the AF. We use standard officer insignia, so the argument follows that standard stripes should be fine, maybe with some alteration. I have nothing against changing the background though if that's what they want.

Officer TIG:
Just a quick note. I set the TIG numbers by the AF chart. We promote peopel too fat now & end up with too many LtCols standing around being commanded by a Capt. It would be better if LtCol in CAP took the same career investment that it takes in the AF.

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 08:34:08 PM
NIMS
CAP will call out resources directly via the NOC, but that's not necessarily the only way, and yes as an individual you can walk up & show certification, they will put you to work & it doesn't matter if you are a CAP member or not or that CAP knows anything about you being there.

I'd be carefull about statements such as this, next thing you know, some yahoo's will be out self deploying saying it's alright because they passed a NIMS course on line.

Quote from: ELThunter on December 08, 2006, 08:41:13 PM

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 08:34:08 PM
NIMS
CAP will call out resources directly via the NOC, but that's not necessarily the only way, and yes as an individual you can walk up & show certification, they will put you to work & it doesn't matter if you are a CAP member or not or that CAP knows anything about you being there.

I'd be carefull about statements such as this, next thing you know, some yahoo's will be out self deploying saying it's alright because they passed a NIMS course on line.

Oh I'm not proposing it as policy. There's a lot more to the standards than a few online courses, you'd have to bring a whole file with you now, versus tehm going to cards. CAP should kick that self deployer out after the fact, but he's going to claim he was there as a private citizen & that may put you in a spot. I'd still kick him out. In the real world, a professional responsder would never do that cause they'd get fired when they get home & they wouldn't be paid for theeir services during the mission. That's not such a motivator when you're talking about CAP members.

Anyway, I'm not encouraging it, I'm just demonstrating that CAP is not in a position of command once they release resources to a mission. As far as NIMS is concerned the only reason CAP exists is to train people & coordinate their deployment to a NIMS certified ICS staff. That doesn't mean it's the whole truth, but CAP doesn't make the rules on this one.

Anyway, like I said, it's just an example of how CAP officers need leadership skills to go with ES quals so they can lead more than other CAP members in emergency situations.

In my perfect CAP World senior officers would hold one of 4 flight officer grades.  Officer grades would only be used for those holding staff and command billets.

Ah, but then on paper everyone would hold a staff job and be an officer Chuck...

As an example:

My perfect CAP world would require that Personnel Officers have completed the specialty track.  (Oh my, that means that Professional Development for advancement might actually mean something...).  If you don't hold the specialty rating then you cannot be the Lieutenant running Personnel.  You might be the Flight Officer running personnel.

Once a person stepped out of staff or command role then they would wear one of the four or five flight officer grades.

My goal:  To deflate the disproportionate CAP officer grades.  Why reward someone with the grade of Major if they never participate or hold an active leadership position.

Quote from: DNall on December 08, 2006, 08:34:08 PM
That's a pretty good idea, as is the red prop/triangle/circle replacing the star or jus the prop inside/over the star. Really if you can take the actual AF stripes & just embroider something over them, that'd be the most financially manageable route. I'm willing to put a range of ideas to the AF. We use standard officer insignia, so the argument follows that standard stripes should be fine, maybe with some alteration. I have nothing against changing the background though if that's what they want.

All in all, just changing the background color seemed easiest. I got the idea from when I was at Keasler, and saw a couple of foreign NCO's with stripes that were similar to ours, except their's was a black background with gold stripes, and instead of the star on AF stripes, there was a cresent moon of some type. That moon looked very similar to our military's Muslim chaplain insignia.

But if it's the same stripe, just a different color, it's easily known what it is. It doesn't need a prop on it. The fact that it's a gray stripe, with a nametag on the person that says "Civil Air Patrol" is all that would really be needed.

It's n ot necessarily that we CAN'T promote NCO's but that we DON'T promote in the NCO ranks.
[/quote]

Ahh, my understanding is that we CAN'T promote because of the way military NCOs become CAP NCOs...wearing the grade insignia they are actually entitled to by the military.   Again, it just irks me that we don't have a CAP distinctive NCO insignia to acknowledge/reward duty performance for NCOs the same way we do Officers...after all, an Air Force Captain can join as a CAP Captain, can wears CAP grade insignia and can be promoted to Major.    The NCO who's in my squadron commands a lot of respect from the cadet (and Officers) because he's an NCO.  He's done a lot of work for the unit and it would just be nice to give him something more tangible than a piece of paper to hang on the wall. 

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 08, 2006, 08:32:41 PM
The way I'm kinda looking at it is that I don't see a reason to create a new grade system. Someone from the Air Force or other branch seeing an airman knows what it is. Someone seeing an FO4 would have no clue.

True, but just about all the services know what a Warrant Officer is. Besides, in CAP, Flight Officer has a negative connotation - an overgrown cadet. Ditch the name "Flight Officer" and use Warrant Officer. Even a significant number of non-military people understand the basics of what a warrant officer is. I would not, however, call all wo's above WO1, Chief Warrant Officer. Tie the name to the level and you'd have WO, Technical WO, Senior WO, Master WO, Chief WO.

Quotet know what anyone might think, but I'll throw out an outlined concept of what I think we could do with enlisted. This is a rough concept, so bear with me.

1. Non staff personnel that have no desire to do anything would get airmen grades. They would receive a basic primer on CAP's missions. Promotions would be time in grade primarily, with a little education on doing something useful. These airmen would be highly encourage to adopt a staff position, and move on further. If they didn't, they would top out at SrA. In other words, you don't put much in, you don't get much.

Why give them any grade if they're not going to do anything? You're reinforcing the 'warm body' scenario. Pay your money, don't cause trouble, get promoted. If someonen't going to do anything, call them a supporter, instructor, etc. They wouldn't wear a military style uniform, just the golf shirt. No ribbons. No badges. No grade. Simple. If they want more, they have to do more.

Quote2. NCO's would only be prior service NCO's. Direct grade conversion to CAP. As far as positions, I don't know what to say, there is so much experience there, I don't know how to quantify it.

Why not let CAP members who complete the training and are active be CAP NCO's? Why should someone who has little or no knowledge of CAP or direct transfer skills come in and outrank most of the membership? The military is not the only source for supervisory skill training. I would argue that a police sergeant or fire lieutenant would easily be qualified to fill an NCO position.

Quote3. Misson pilots, scanners, obbservers, other mission personnel that do only that get warrant officer grades. But only if that's all they're doing. If the same folks are doing staff positions, then they work with O grade.

I'd expand this to all professional appointments. If they start OCS and are serving in the appropriate staff position, then they get an O grade.

Quote4.  A. Officer candidates start out with "OTC" (officer candidate course). Six months, and about 80 hours (actual time, not college type hours) of training to include some general officer skill, leadership, drill, C&C, etc. Not just four hours, and some new clothes.

     B. Continuing education would be more in depth, with a lot of focus on working with other agencies. Definitely continuing in leadership.

This is a common idea in all the suggestions I have seen.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 08, 2006, 08:32:41 PM
4.  A. Officer candidates start out with "OTC" (officer candidate course). Six months, and about 80 hours (actual time, not college type hours) of training to include some general officer skill, leadership, drill, C&C, etc. Not just four hours, and some new clothes.

I haven't sat in on the new Level 1 class, but the previous ones I have only vaugely mention customs and courtesies and that we salute, but not actually show how or require demonstrating.  Uniform wear should be more emphasized...have you ever tried to explain to someone all the possible uniform options??  Sheesh, do they have an hour?

I realize Officers aren't cadets and we are two seperate programs, but for any Officer who comes anywhere near a cadet knows, they tend to salute and you better know how to return it.    For that matter, how can Officers be involved with Cadet Programs with so little training in the military basics??  There's nothing like being at a Squadron meeting during opening ceremonies (two Flights, one Cadet and one Officer) and the Acting Officer Flight Commander calls "Parade Rest" and two Lieutenants and a Captain look at you with total confusion written all over their faces.

I'm all for a longer Officer Candidate Course rather than the short and sweet Level 1 class.   

Fixed quote tag. - MIKE

I like the idea of changing the structure and have seen some good ideas put forth here.  Let me try and add to the  fun.

Enhance the current Level One by rolling the cadet Phase One program into it with it's Leadership Tests (written and practical) to ensure that non-prior service SM at least get the basics of military courtesy.  The combined Level One Test would be handled by Group Commanders (Wing if no group structure in place) over a single day (8 hours) and would result in promotion to Airman by the Group Commander.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 6 months – still need the background check, etc)

Completion of the Technician Level in a senior specialty track, graduation from SLS, and one year TIG as an airman allows the squadron commander to promote the individual to Airman First Class.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 18 months)

Completion of the Senior Level in a senior specialty track, graduation from CLC, and eighteen months TIG as an A1C allows the squadron commander to promote the individual to Senior Airman.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 3 years)

Completion of the Master Level in a senior specialty track and a Wing level Basic NCO Course (40 hour residence course on leadership, management, counseling, logistical accountability, etc) and two years as a SrA allows the Group Commander to promote the individual to Staff Sergeant.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 5 years)

Completion of the AFIADL Noncommissioned Officer Academy Correspondence Course (AFIADL Course 9) and two years in grade as a SSgt allows the Group Commander to promote the individual to Technical Sergeant.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 7 years)

Completion of a second Master Level in a senior specialty track, receipt of the Yeager Aerospace Award, completion of a general ES specialty and two years in grade as a TSgt allows the Wing Commander to promote the individual to Master Sergeant.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 9 years)

Completion of the AFIADL Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy Correspondence Course (AFIADL Course 12/14) and three years in grade as a MSgt allows the Wing Commander to promote the individual to Senior Master Sergeant.  (TOTAL TIS: approximately 12 years)

Allow the Wing and Region Commanders to nominate one SMSgt from their organization to be designated by NHQ as a Chief Master Sergeant.  Nominees for CMSgt must have at least three years in grade as SMSgt and attend the next Wing Commander's course before being promoted to CMSgt.  The National Commander will also designate one CMSgt to be the CMSgt of CAP.

NOTE:  AFIADL Course 9 requires 6 years of service for SSgt's to enroll
            AFIADL Course 12/14 requires a minimum grade of MSgt to enroll

All training must be brought current for former military NCO's to be promoted.  For example, a retired Army SFC would be promoted to MSgt upon completion of the new level one, but would have to complete two master ratings, SLS, CLC, Yeager Award, General ES, AFIADL Course 12/14, and have three years in grade to be promoted to SMSgt.

Since we would be capped at 60 CMSgts (52 wings, 8 regions), all E-9's would come into CAP as SMSgt's (similar to LtCol limitation for officers) and compete for a CMSgt slot.

Rank insignia will be the current USAF pin on rank pinned to a gray sleeve for the blues and Aviator Shirt combinations and pinned to the color of the BBDU.  For flight clothing, the rank will only be worn on the leather flight wings patch.

NCOs could hold all jobs in CAP except Commander or Deputy Commander.

With the exception that you must be either a Mission Pilot, Mission Observer, or Ground Team Leader to be eligible for Flight Officer grades, FO1 – FO5 will use the current promotion system with direct replacement of FO1 for 2ndLt, FO2 for 1stLt, FO3 for Capt, FO4 for Maj, FO5 for LtCol.  FO1 and FO2 to be known as Flight Officers, FO3 and FO4 will be known as Chief Flight Officers and FO5 will be known as a Master Flight Officer.  Rank insignia will be the same pattern as the current Army Warrant Officers, but Blue on Silver instead of Black on Silver.  This is chosen to rapidly allow the insignia to be made from existing dies.

FOs could hold all jobs in CAP except Commander or Deputy Commander.

Commissioned Officer grades will be reserved for Commanders and principle staff officers at all levels based on your existing FO grade, but not to exceed Major for Squadron Commanders and Lieutenant Colonel for Group Commanders with deputies one grade lower and principle staff officers two grades lower at each level.  Squadrons would then be Maj/Capt/1stLt max, Groups would be LtCol, Maj, Capt max, Wings would be Col, LtCol, Maj max.

Trung Si Ma, that would be a good system IF, there hadn't been three previous methods of gaining promotion in CAP. What are you going to do with a Lt Col that has three Masters ratings, completed AFDLI 13, SOS, ACSC and AWC but is a Squadron DCP? Demote him to MSgt?
Many of the suggestions for a new gade program are based on aircrews or ES qualifications. But without the average squadron staff working to maintain the Squadron such as Personnel, Cadet Programs staff, Finance Officer etc, the squadron would fall flat on it's face. But so many of the suggestions require advancement in ES or flight crew advancement it seems that only people involved in those think people should hold grade or be promoted.
CAP needs to allow former military NCOs to be promoted through the NCO ranks after they advance their CAP training. They earned their rank the hard way, but CAP locks them in their previous military rank regardless of advanced training. Why should a former military E-6 be locked into that rank when he completes a Masters rating or two in CAP?

Bill,

I am one of those former NCO's with multiple master ratings and a low number GRW and I'd like to be promoted to an equal NCO grade from my past life - but NHQ says you can't voluntarily give up what you have an go "back".  BTW - NCO grades were no longer allowed when I became a senior.  I also don't - personally - consider becoming an NCO again a demotion.

Under my proposal, that squadron DCP would be a Capt as long as they held a squadron deputy slot and since they already have AFDLI 13/SOS/ACSC/AWC.  But as a deputy, that person can't wear NCO grade either.

Back in the famous "old days" (the 70's) we were restricted to a certain number of people at each grade based on our overall structure.  My promotion paperwork to both Capt and Major have places where the Squadron, Group, Wing, and Region Commanders had to certify the total number of the recommend grade on hand versus the authorized numbers and you did not get promoted if there was no openings.  That system was done away with because it was not "fair" since we have no mandatory retirement in CAP.  The end product?  CAP has more "colonels" than the Confederate Air Force.

Also notice that the first time I require demonstrated capability in all three congressionally mandated missions was at promotion to MSgt since they could not take AFDLI 12/14 until they were E-7's and I wanted something (anything) in there to make it "earned".

No new band-aid is going to cover everything and this is all an exercise in mental gymnastics since we have not taken this argument out of the fantasy word (this board) and moved it into the command channels to facilitate the changes.

Trung Si Ma

I agree with a lot of what Trung Si Ma put forth.  I too don't look at returning to an NCO status a bad thing.  I wasn't aware of NHQ disapproving it though.  I don't recall seeing it any of our regulations. 

Where I would have a problem is if I was already a military E9 and was looking at joining.  Why would I want to give up a stripe that took me 20 plus years to earn.  You also have to look at Wing size as well.  Larger wings ( both membership wise and geographically) could probably support more than one CMSgt billet.

I would much rather wear my real military enlisted rank equivilent then my 'major' grade that CAP says I am.

"I too don't look at returning to an NCO status a bad thing.  I wasn't aware of NHQ disapproving it though.  I don't recall seeing it any of our regulations."

Call NHQ and tell them that you want to be a SMSgt instead of a Major and listen to the silence.  BTDT

"Where I would have a problem is if I was already a military E9 and was looking at joining.  Why would I want to give up a stripe that took me 20 plus years to earn."

Same - Same for O-6 and above.  Personally, no problem with CSM conversion to CMSgt.

"You also have to look at Wing size as well.  Larger wings ( both membership wise and geographically) could probably support more than one CMSgt billet."

I think the AF now has Command CMSgt's now days (CSM equivilant) and I could see that as one per wing / region.  I just thought that if "they" could protect O-6's, I could protect CSM's.  Either way, I'm flexible.

"I would much rather wear my real military enlisted rank equivilent then my 'major' grade that CAP says I am."

Amen brother, Amen.

Quote from: arajca on December 08, 2006, 10:01:30 PM
True, but just about all the services know what a Warrant Officer is. Ditch the name "Flight Officer" and use Warrant Officer. Even a significant number of non-military people understand the basics of what a warrant officer is. I would not, however, call all wo's above WO1, Chief Warrant Officer. Tie the name to the level and you'd have WO, Technical WO, Senior WO, Master WO, Chief WO.

Technical Warrant? Senior Warrant? No, that would literally be bastardizing an existing military grade scale.  If you're going to use a military grade system, then you use as the military does. You don't retitle it to your own means. Warrant officers in the military usually rate more respect than company and some field grade officers. The pilots, not so much. But that is another subject altogether.

Quote
Why not let CAP members who complete the training and are active be CAP NCO's? Why should someone who has little or no knowledge of CAP or direct transfer skills come in and outrank most of the membership? The military is not the only source for supervisory skill training. I would argue that a police sergeant or fire lieutenant would easily be qualified to fill an NCO position.

Why should someone transferring from the Army to the Air Force get to keep their grade? That's a far more pertinant question than an NCO transferring into CAP. A lot of NCO's I've known in the military have had far more leadership experience than most non-prior service CAP officers. We should be looking up to any military NCO's for the experience they provide, not down on them because they didn't start in our little country club.

As far as a police sergeant or fire lieutenant, I doubt they've had leadership training in the same manner as the military. The only leadership course I ever took in the AF was more focused on leading a whole person, not just the person I saw from 7 to 5. I don't think most police or fire departments are trained in that manner. Even if they did, I still think it would be different enough that it wouldn't be the same as a military NCO.

Quote from: CAP Sergeant on December 08, 2006, 09:02:56 PM
In my perfect CAP World senior officers would hold one of 4 flight officer grades.  Officer grades would only be used for those holding staff and command billets.

Ah, but then on paper everyone would hold a staff job and be an officer Chuck...

As an example:

My perfect CAP world would require that Personnel Officers have completed the specialty track.  (Oh my, that means that Professional Development for advancement might actually mean something...).  If you don't hold the specialty rating then you cannot be the Lieutenant running Personnel.  You might be the Flight Officer running personnel.

Once a person stepped out of staff or command role then they would wear one of the four or five flight officer grades.

My goal:  To deflate the disproportionate CAP officer grades.  Why reward someone with the grade of Major if they never participate or hold an active leadership position.

Due respect, but this doesn't work at all. The specialty tracks aren't professional devlopment. They actually suck right now, but even if they were fixed they'd just train you in a specialty. That doesn't do anything to make leaders or managers. If you make the officer grade position dependent, then you haven't done anything to instil the necessary leadership/mgmt training in the people that assume those jobs, and you've taken away the motivation to do the PMEs cause all you get is a meaningless FO grade.

The officer progression I posted above is pretty good. That's a whole lot of people's ideas & quite a bit of work to get there. It very much does deflate the officer grades to legitimate levels. It'll take a little time with the transition, but it works qquite well.


Happy to see discussion on the NCO progression. Here's how I'd run it.

- 6 mos & a new from scratch Lvl I gets you Amn
- Tech rating & a year gets you A1C
- Two more years & ALS gets you SrA
- 3 years & Lvl III (enhanced CLC, plus conferences, & senior rating) gets you SSgt
- 4 years & Lvl IV (NCOA subs for RSC) gets you TSgt
- 5 years & lvl V (SNCOA subs for NSC) gets you MSgt

AFIADL enlisted PMEs:
ALS: Crs 1 http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/alspgm01.htm (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/alspgm01.htm)
NCOA: Crs 9 http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/ncoacc01.htm (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/ncoacc01.htm)
SNCOA Crs 12/14: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/course12.htm (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afiadl/curriculum/catalog/html/course12.htm)

You can run CAP specific in-res versions, and also work with states to allow members to audit in-res versions from the ANG/ARNG.

Now if you can give me a good way to add a merit element to the promotion system, I'd like to see that also. Maybe something that reduces the TIG a bit for superb candidates.

The SMSgt & CMSgt grades would be reserved for prior-service. Temp grade of E-7 to E-9 1Sgt for the elected 1Sgt Pgm. (E-7/1Sgt at Sq/Gp, E-8/1Sgt at Wg, E-9/1Sgt at Reg/Nat, one CCSMgt chairs National 1Sgt's council).

"As far as a police sergeant or fire lieutenant, I doubt they've had leadership training in the same manner as the military. The only leadership course I ever took in the AF was more focused on leading a whole person, not just the person I saw from 7 to 5. I don't think most police or fire departments are trained in that manner. Even if they did, I still think it would be different enough that it wouldn't be the same as a military NCO."
[/quote]


   Hawk 200, I disagree with you. It's very hard for someone who has not served for a few years as a Police Officer or a Fire Fighter to know what training these people have. Police Command staff, both Sgt and LT, Capt and so forth all have very good management courses that The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement requires. Further more there are several graduate leadership and management courses that many Police Supervisors take, including the FBI National Academy. But besides the courses, Police Supervisors have lots of experience leading our troops, designing training programs, managing operations, taking charge of incidents and in fact most police supervisors are fully trained in the ICS system.  So, unless you have been a Police Officer for a few years at a decent sized or accredited agency don't try and guess at the level of training or management/leadership skills these people have. I've been a Police Officer for almost 10 years, I have lead as a Incident commander on minor/major incidents at various times thru my carrear.

  A Police Officer from any decent agency would be a perfect fit for an NCO position as they have more then enough leadership and command presence to get the job done. I think you GREATLY underestimate the training Law Enforcement Officers have. Our basic Academy alone has been evaluated for up to 39hrs of College Credit thru several Colleges and Universities. Police Officers are not just given a week or two of school, given a badge and sent out to the field to write tickets. Even a basic Police Officer must demonstrate leadership skills and problem solving skills to function.  In fact I think CAP should heavily recruit Police Officers, we are a perfect fit for CAP as are prior service members. We already know how to wear a uniform in a manner thats going to be sharp, we already know how to lead people or give presentations, we are already very well training in reading people and developing a game plan for an incident. Plus we have already proved we are capable of learning and comprehending what we study. If you want great members for your squadron, recruit heavily at decent police departments, you might be surprised by the caliber of person you get.

Quote from: DrJbdm on December 09, 2006, 03:22:42 PM

   Hawk 200, I disagree with you. It's very hard for someone who has not served for a few years as a Police Officer or a Fire Fighter to know what training these people have. Police Command staff, both Sgt and LT, Capt and so forth all have very good management courses that The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement requires. Further more there are several graduate leadership and management courses that many Police Supervisors take, including the FBI National Academy. But besides the courses, Police Supervisors have lots of experience leading our troops, designing training programs, managing operations, taking charge of incidents and in fact most police supervisors are fully trained in the ICS system.  So, unless you have been a Police Officer for a few years at a decent sized or accredited agency don't try and guess at the level of training or management/leadership skills these people have. I've been a Police Officer for almost 10 years, I have lead as a Incident commander on minor/major incidents at various times thru my carrear.

  A Police Officer from any decent agency would be a perfect fit for an NCO position as they have more then enough leadership and command presence to get the job done. I think you GREATLY underestimate the training Law Enforcement Officers have. Our basic Academy alone has been evaluated for up to 39hrs of College Credit thru several Colleges and Universities. Police Officers are not just given a week or two of school, given a badge and sent out to the field to write tickets. Even a basic Police Officer must demonstrate leadership skills and problem solving skills to function.  In fact I think CAP should heavily recruit Police Officers, we are a perfect fit for CAP as are prior service members. We already know how to wear a uniform in a manner thats going to be sharp, we already know how to lead people or give presentations, we are already very well training in reading people and developing a game plan for an incident. Plus we have already proved we are capable of learning and comprehending what we study. If you want great members for your squadron, recruit heavily at decent police departments, you might be surprised by the caliber of person you get.

DrJbdm, I think I am probably far more familiar with law enforcement and the legal system than you are aware. Haven't been a cop myself yet, but my father has been one for 33 years, I've had over a dozen friends that are/were cops, worked at a law enforcement training facility for about 16 months. Plus strangely enough, half the people I meet for some reason think I'm a cop. (Still haven't figured that out yet.) Does that make an expert? Definitely not. But it does leave me with a far more educated guess than most people in the general public.

Second, I don't have to wear their uniform to know leadership. But since you are going to pull that card: Have you ever been a military NCO? If you haven't, then by your own reasoning, you have no place making a comparison.

However, for us to really know, we need someone that has been both. Anyone out there both military and cop?

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 09, 2006, 06:41:47 PM
Anyone out there both military and cop?

Never been a cop, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!  ;D

But I have dated a cop for five years - while being an NCO - and so got to live in both worlds.  Michelle's world was actually more insular than ours was with more of a feeling of its us versus them than I have ever seen in the military.  And yes, I was in the Army right after VN when we were almost a praetorian guard - we were extremely proud of the fact that we were not like the ones we were sworn to protect.

And the father of my god daughters is an Army Officer with a degree in Criminology / Police Science (who worked as a Georgia cop while going through college) says he could never go back to being a cop after being in the military - the mindsets are just too different.

The main difference that I noticed is that the cops are there to protect society - a specific society defined by their jurisdiction - and we existed to protect an idea defined by the constitution.  It's a hard issue to define, but for me I think I saw it best during Granada as we stood shoulder to shoulder, facing outward, as the St. George's University students moved down that protective corridor and on to the helicopters for a ride to the hospital - we were protecting the Innocent from the wolf.  Contrast that to police actions during any major activity (Detroit Riots, LA Riots, Katrina, etc) - the police moved to protect the societal infrastructure first.

Most of the cops that I have gotten to really know through either societal connections or through a lifetime of competitive shooting are more time focused - the end of my shift, overtime, etc - and most NCOs have been focused on the event.  Maybe that is why "training to standard, not to schedule" is a military phrase and not a cop phrase.

Here is a side question - why are the police departments of the US trying so hard to hire military NCOs and there is no program that targets hiring cops into the military?

Another question - when does the legal concept of double jeopardy not apply?  When you are being tried under the UCMJ after getting away with it in a civilian court.

Hawk, I appreciate your comeback, and yes with your exposure you might very well be a little more familiar then someone who hasn't been exposed to the environment. Thanks for the background.

  I was not trying to make a comparison between an NCO and an experienced Police Officer. There are many concepts and ideas that a good NCO could bring to a Police Department. I'm not saying the training is equal, it's different in concept and practice but not extremely dissimilar. As a Sr. Police Officer who helps recruit and hire new Officers I would love to get great former NCO's. One of my Officers is a retired Navy Command Master Chief, I wish I could find a 100 more just like him.

   I took the impression that your post to be derogatory to Police Officers and took the impression that you where saying that they wouldn't make great NCOs or even Officers for CAP. (I think CAP NEEDS both a great NCO corp and Officer Corp with professional training and standards for both)

  I think we all want nothing more then to have the best people in CAP who make us look and act more respectable and Professional. Times are changing and CAP has to change with it and the first step comes from recruiting great people. The day of lets take anyone with a pulse is coming to a very fast close, CAP needs to develop a better set of standards for both NCO and Officer.



 

 

Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 09, 2006, 02:01:41 AM
Call NHQ and tell them that you want to be a SMSgt instead of a Major and listen to the silence.  BTDT

I know people that have down that successfully.  Either way, it's not NHQ's call.

The reason I brought fire and police supervisors into the discussion was to question why NCO grades should be restricted to military NCO's. So far no one has convinced me that military NCO's are so god-like that no mere CAP member should ever hope to attain NCO grades. I see no reason the restrict the NCO grades to military personnel only. The junior nco grades are roughly equal to a foreman of a small crew. The mid nco grades, a site supervisor. The senior nco grades, mid-level management. Where is the mystery? What makes military NCO's so special that non-military CAP members should be prohibited from attaining the same grades in CAP?

I don't think that they should be restricted to just military types - I think that we should all start there

Others have said that. Along with restricting senior NCO grades to military NCO's.

Quote from: Psicorp on December 08, 2006, 09:52:06 PM
Ahh, my understanding is that we CAN'T promote because of the way military NCOs become CAP NCOs...wearing the grade insignia they are actually entitled to by the military. 

Yes that is exactly right.  The CAP rank system is based off officer ranks.  We only allow ex-NCO's to continue to wear their NCO stripes because they would rather wear stripes than bars.

And therefore the NCO ranks mean absolutely nothing to either the USAF or CAP.

But....the is nothing really stopping CAP from creating a new rank structure that includes enlisted ranks.  I just don't see the real need and I do think it will cause some heart burn in the recruiting and retention area.

Quote from: Psicorp on December 08, 2006, 09:52:06 PMAgain, it just irks me that we don't have a CAP distinctive NCO insignia to acknowledge/reward duty performance for NCOs the same way we do Officers...after all, an Air Force Captain can join as a CAP Captain, can wears CAP grade insignia and can be promoted to Major.    The NCO who's in my squadron commands a lot of respect from the cadet (and Officers) because he's an NCO.  He's done a lot of work for the unit and it would just be nice to give him something more tangible than a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

If a SM wanted that sort of recognition...he would not have opted for the NCO stripes in the first place.  Secondly...we don't recognize hard work with promotions.  We promote people when they complete a set of training and meet minimum requirements, no hard work required (okay some but not a lot.)  If you want to recognize you hard working NCO's put him in for a MSM or Commander Commendation or some such.

I honestly believe that if we had a standard of measurement in order to be an Officer then enlisted ranks would be very appropriate. The average person on the street not to mention the AD or NG forces that do not know of CAP have NO clue that CAP has no enlisted ranks for general membership, they assume that there is if there is an Officer side to CAP. I know many people who can not understand why we make EVERYONE an Officer.

  I honestly feel that cap needs to create a enlisted system for those who can't or won't meet the standards of measurement to be an Officer. it might really bring around more respect from the AF as I am sure they firmly believe that not everyone with a pulse should be an officer. Does it strike any of you as being a good thing that the guy who fell of the back end of the short bus should be an Officer in CAP and wear the Air Force style uniform??

  An honest standard of measurement along with a good OTS would be needed before CAP could honestly look at having enlisted ranks. Those that don't qualify to be officers would be brought into CAP as enlisted members.  Yes while currently our NCO grades are reserved for former Military NCOs it wouldn't take much to create a system of enlisted ranks for the general membership they just need to decide to do it. As far as creating heartbun and retention issues because of it, I don't see it. SDFs like the Texas State Guard brings everyone in as an enlisted member, only those who meet the ANG standard for commissioning can become an Officer....and they still have to serve 2 years in the enlisted side unless you're a former military officer. they have no real issues with members getting heartburn for being enlisted or in retention problems.

  Try this on for size, this one idea that I just thought of that might be very easy to implement, and still uses our current 5 grade progression structure. all those not meeting the standard to be an officer would start as an AB. (use DNalls standard for Officers)

Upon reaching level one and 6month = Senior Airman  (same requirements for currently being a 2Lt)
level 2, tech rating and 1yr TIG = Staff Sgt  (1st Lt under current regs)
level three and 18 months = Tech Sgt
level four and 3 years = master Sgt
level five and 4 years = SMSGT
SMSGTs would be selected by Wing Commanders to serve as the wing CMSGT.

The only difference in reaching those levels above would be to remove Officer course work and supplementing appropriate NCO level course work.

  Those qualified to be Officers would after completing a year long OTS,  become 2Lt's and complete the standard progression as we currently have but with more AFIADL requirements and more standards as the ranks progress.  This is just a rough idea as to how CAP could do the enlisted grades without having to shelve the intire progression system we have in place now. I currently  love DNalls plan, but that would require CAP to completely be overhauled, which I am sure would ultimately be the best solution for CAP. This is only another way to easily add badly needed enlisted ranks. Although I really feel DNalls method of selecting those to be Officers should be the new standard even if we went to something like I'm presenting here.

Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 09, 2006, 07:49:17 PM
we were almost a praetorian guard - we were extremely proud of the fact that we were not like the ones we were sworn to protect.

Oh I think that's still a pretty common virtue much more than anyone would ever speak out loud, regardless of the times, but given the time you're speaking of I know that must have been VERY hard to ignore.

Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2006, 01:16:26 AM
The reason I brought fire and police supervisors into the discussion was to question why NCO grades should be restricted to military NCO's. So far no one has convinced me that military NCO's are so god-like that no mere CAP member should ever hope to attain NCO grades. I see no reason the restrict the NCO grades to military personnel only. The junior nco grades are roughly equal to a foreman of a small crew. The mid nco grades, a site supervisor. The senior nco grades, mid-level management. Where is the mystery? What makes military NCO's so special that non-military CAP members should be prohibited from attaining the same grades in CAP?

I think I mentioned before... I think people are looking at it sideways on this one. I think the complaint is: looking at CAP you get a mixed bag of some very good members & many less than good ones in the eyes of an experienced military NCO assessing things by the standards he/she has been held to all their career & had drummed into them like the voice of God. From that perspective you look at creating an NCO corps & making the officer corps standards significantly higher. The natural logic is that the smaller percentage of outstanding people are going to rise to the officer grades while the less than desirable element is left behind as NCOs. If I were an NCO thinking that were the case, I'd be fired up about not allowing it also. They are going to demand professional standards of NCOs & expect them to earn every bit of the grade they wear as direct leaders & subject matter experts. That's a reasonable expectation, and we should meet it.

The comment I have on fire/LE/EMS supervisors is not that they don't have anything worthy of being on our table, but that the leadership & mgmt training they do have is not a nationally standardized measurable equal of certain aspects of military training & advancement. We don't & shouldn't give an MBA advanced grade either, and they probably do have quite a bit they can bring to help us out (save your comments on the worth of such a degree, it's just an example).


I appreciate the support of the ideas I've advanced, but again I can only claim credit for a small smidgen. It's mostly the AF system juxtaposed with the reality of CAP, and with a significant amount of work from MANY other contributors. While what I posted is now my ideas, it's almost all stolen from other VERY qualified people in a lively & respectful conversation like this one (actually a long series of such discussions). My only real contribution is to stoke the fire now & again & keep people's wheels turning.

My honest opinion is that the general concept of what I posed is what I'd very much like to see & what I'd try to force into place if I had the power to do so. My opinion is that it hurts less to rip the tape off fast than to pull it off tortuously slow, especially in sensitive areas like this. However, the only ways I know to move down this road are long slow ones. We can have these conversations & hope to catch national attention (which it does by the way), we can try to move toward a juxtaposition of these ideas & what Iowa is doing, and/or we can take a local approach & do the best we can & hope it gets noticed & stolen by the next higher echelon. I'll still be working my back channels to bring pressure on CAP to reform, and I expect others will do all they can to push CAP from inside & out. Ultimately I think as team we can drive CAP toward "excellence in all we do" & not making excuses or tolerating laziness or law standards along the way. It just takes time. In the meantime, if all I get is a spirited discussion with you guys that shows all our passion for CAP, then thanks for personal development.

You're saying that no one except military nco's are good enough to hold senior nco grades in CAP. That there is not chance anyone except a military nco will ever be good enough. I can't accept that.

Quote from: DrJbdm on December 10, 2006, 12:17:12 AMI took the impression that your post to be derogatory to Police Officers and took the impression that you where saying that they wouldn't make great NCOs or even Officers for CAP. (I think CAP NEEDS both a great NCO corp and Officer Corp with professional training and standards for both)

If I gave you that impression then I sincerely apologize. I have a great deal of respect for  law enforcement, especially considering my father's background.  I may end up a cop myself in the next year or so, it depends on how the cards fall.

Considering the professionalism of the good LEO's I've known, I have no doubt that they are high caliber. I still believe that law enforcement is a completely different world, and definitely no more or less than the military NCO. It's the differences in how each is trained, not the quality that I intended to address.

And it's hard not to respect someone that spends a great deal of duty time helping people that quite often don't want their help. This is still a great irony to me, especially when I hear the phrase: "Where's a cop when you need one?" I want to tell these people that they have made it clear to those cops that they don't want their help. That takes a great deal of dedication to put up with that kind of attitude among the populace.

Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2006, 01:16:26 AM
The reason I brought fire and police supervisors into the discussion was to question why NCO grades should be restricted to military NCO's. So far no one has convinced me that military NCO's are so god-like that no mere CAP member should ever hope to attain NCO grades. I see no reason the restrict the NCO grades to military personnel only. The junior nco grades are roughly equal to a foreman of a small crew. The mid nco grades, a site supervisor. The senior nco grades, mid-level management. Where is the mystery? What makes military NCO's so special that non-military CAP members should be prohibited from attaining the same grades in CAP?

If you're talking about a promotion system for CAP starting from the bottom and then moving up to the NCO grades, then everyone could do it.

My personal premise would simply be transferring military grade to CAP NCO grade. The military would never take a person into the military with no prior military experience and make them an NCO. It wouldn't happen. So there's no reason for CAP to do so.

It's not a matter being "god like", it's a matter of spending your time, paying your dues. I wouldn't want someone in charge of me that had never mopped the floors like I did, I don't care what they are. And I think you may find that attitude prevalent among most military personnel. It would be like handing someone fresh off the street a colonel bird, or general stars.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 10, 2006, 05:34:11 AM

Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2006, 01:16:26 AM
The reason I brought fire and police supervisors into the discussion was to question why NCO grades should be restricted to military NCO's. So far no one has convinced me that military NCO's are so god-like that no mere CAP member should ever hope to attain NCO grades. I see no reason the restrict the NCO grades to military personnel only. The junior nco grades are roughly equal to a foreman of a small crew. The mid nco grades, a site supervisor. The senior nco grades, mid-level management. Where is the mystery? What makes military NCO's so special that non-military CAP members should be prohibited from attaining the same grades in CAP?

If you're talking about a promotion system for CAP starting from the bottom and then moving up to the NCO grades, then everyone could do it.

Not according to DNall's proposal.

QuoteMy personal premise would simply be transferring military grade to CAP NCO grade. The military would never take a person into the military with no prior military experience and make them an NCO. It wouldn't happen. So there's no reason for CAP to do so.

It's not a matter being "god like", it's a matter of spending your time, paying your dues. I wouldn't want someone in charge of me that had never mopped the floors like I did, I don't care what they are. And I think you may find that attitude prevalent among most military personnel. It would be like handing someone fresh off the street a colonel bird, or general stars.

To apply that logic, why should CAP give advanced grade to someone who has not worked with cadets or served as a GTM? CAP is not the military. CAP needs leaders. More importantly, CAP needs leaders who understand how the civilian world works. You don't get that from the military. There is a reason for CAP to give advanced NCO grades to leaders regardless of their origin. We need them. How many NCO's come to CAP with an understanding of how CAP works and what it does? I haven't met one yet. Most have heard rumors or tales. I have met several who learned about CAP, what it does, and how it works after they joined. Some of these joined as CAP NCO's, others joined as CAP officers. If a local SAR team leader wanted to join, would you start him at the bottom? Keep in mind he has the leadership and real world rescue skills CAP needs. Would it not make sense to start him at a higher grade, say E-5, if he is willing to use his skills for CAP?

The attitude of "if you haven't done what I have, you aren't good enough" may work in the military, but it doesn't work in the civilian world. How many times have people had supervisors brought in that haven't gone through the same training and work history they have? You're still expected to do your job. That military attitude will get you fired.

Your analogy of giving someone off the street birds or stars fails because those grades are reserved for corporate officers.

Um, we don't insult military officers & NCOs by demoting them when they come over. If you see the cases where a person is moving from one service to another & doesn't reatin their full grade, it's cause they gave them everything they qualified for. If you're an E-5 AF aircraft mechanic going infantry, well you aren't really qualified to directly lead troops in battle & probably are only goiong to get E-4 until you do the back work & get up to speed. I don't think CAP is in any kind of position to tell a real military officer or NCO that they don't meet our standards as a leader, and I don't think we're so flush w/ qual'd leaders that we can deter them from participting. Therefore, they keep their grade, period. We may require them to do some training to transition and to transition from there, but that's not changing, and frankly full Col should be opened up to that as well.

Other then that one exception to policy, which is also in deference to the NCOs we'd be seeking to placate & reassure, the top couple NCO grades in the system I proposed are position oriented, just like the top officer grades of Col - Maj Gen  are (now AND under the version I proposed) position oriented. The gigantic dif being those couple NCO grades are elected by members to speak for them in the structure, just like CAC does for cadets. So yes, any member can earn those grades, regardless if they'd never been in the military, and to keep the grade w/o the 1Sgt diamond after they leave office, all they have to do is serve the term satisfactorily & have finished level V in the PD program. I don't know if I wasn't explaining myself well, or if I'm missing what you're talking about, but straighten me out & I'll be glad to give it some more thought.

Quote from: DNall on December 09, 2006, 04:42:30 AM
The SMSgt & CMSgt grades would be reserved for prior-service. Temp grade of E-7 to E-9 1Sgt for the elected 1Sgt Pgm. (E-7/1Sgt at Sq/Gp, E-8/1Sgt at Wg, E-9/1Sgt at Reg/Nat, one CCSMgt chairs National 1Sgt's council).

emphasis mine

I don't see where non-military CAP NCO's could progress above MSgt in this idea.

In order for there to be Enlisted Grades in CAP there would have to be a paradigm shift too radical for many to support.

Here is what would have to be developed...

1) Fair criteria for Officership in CAP.  This is more than just height and weight to fit into uniforms, but real skill sets.  Maybe people will a college degree or other skill set like a pilot.  Then one would need officer training. 

Devil's advocacy: How any potential CAP officers, who are volunteers, would actually have the several weeks to take off of work?  Then, how many of potentials would opt not to be officers?  We might have whole units of NCOs and the like without officers.  What then? What about "post-backs," those that are already Majors and Lt COls, will you drop them in grade?  Forfeit their officership.  Drop them in grade and you may well drop them from the program.

2) Prior Service promotion:  At present the NCO grades are more of an appratus to honor prior service.  Many are glad to keep their prior service rank.  One would have to mitigate the CAP NCO from a Prior Service one.

3) Mechinism for promotion:  Currently there is no mechinism for promotion.  Many people like the reward of getting promoted every now and then.  With NCOs I have met they opy out becuse they don't want to be frozen in rank for ever and don't like the idea of jumping to some officer rank.

4) Total redesign of the way CAP works.  Sell that to even have of only the people who post here....not to mention the whole CAP that does not.

Here's an idea - Four types of member:

• Instructor/Support/Reserve - those members who join to support a unit be serving as Finance, Admin, Pers, etc officer. Also includes CSM and AEM. These are the members that have no interest in progression. They are content to show up and do the work that needs to be done to keep the unit functioning. Many MLO's also fall into this category - but not all by a long shot.
• Enlisted - This is the new member who knows CAP are three letter in the alphabet. They are interested in some progression, but not in being a leader at the time, although they may decide to develop leadership skill and take a leadership role later. They generally don't bring any critical skills to justify being an officer, although they may bring skill to justify advanced enlisted grade. These members are most likely those who will serve in ES as operators, GTM's, MRO's, etc.GTL, CUL, etc would be NCO's.
• Warrant Officers - Members who bring crictical skills to the organization. Also, for those members who progress into the mid level ES supervisory roles, GOBD, AOBD, MSO, IO, etc. Pilots would fall into the warrant officer category as well. EMT's, non-BA degreed medical professionals, MLO's, educators, etc would also become warrants. Enlisted members can take a Warrant Officer Course to enter the warrant grades as well.
• Commissioned Officers - Those members who desire leadership roles. They will have more indepth training, including residence and correspondence course work. These will be the leaders of the organization. BA or higher degreed medical professionals, chaplains, legal, etc will receive commissions, but will not be eligible for command unless they complete the leadersip training for their grade. The list will follow AF guidelines.
  

If a unit has no officers, an otherwise qualified warrant or NCO may be breveted to Capt for the sole purpose of commanding the unit. When they step down, they return to the appropriate warrant of enlisted grade. Part of their responsibility will be to get a commissioned officer to replace them.

Current officers will be frozen, until they back fill their training or test out. They will also have the option of dropping to warrant or enlisted grades. A transition table will need to be established to assist in this.

All promotions will include a combination of required training (different for each category) and points. Unlike the military, the points needed for promotion will not vary from job to job, nor will they fluctate from month to month. I.e. 300 points to go from SSgt to TSgt this month, and 500 next month. The military does this because they have a limited number of slots for each grade, which CAP shouldn't have. (side note: when I was AD, I knew of one Sgt who got promoted to SSG even though the point level was set at max because there were no E-6 slots available. He managed to accumulate 999 points and the Army had to promote him. Many other Sgt's were quite upset because they could not get promoted).

Points will be earned from activity participation, SAREX's, NCSA's, wing activities, additional schools, college course work, Ae presentations to outside orgs/schools, CAP presentations to other orgs, etc. Basically activites beyond the unit regular meetings. Also, additional/mulitple PD ratings above Tech would receive points. (example: First tech rating receives 15 points. That's it for tech ratings only 15 points. First senior rating receives 20 points, each additional senior rating receives an additional 15 points. First Master rating receives 25 points, each subsequent Master rating receives 20 points.)

Any change in the CAP grade structure would require a huge paradigm shift.

Quote from: arajca on December 10, 2006, 05:01:45 PM

Quote from: DNall on December 09, 2006, 04:42:30 AM
The SMSgt & CMSgt grades would be reserved for prior-service. Temp grade of E-7 to E-9 1Sgt for the elected 1Sgt Pgm. (E-7/1Sgt at Sq/Gp, E-8/1Sgt at Wg, E-9/1Sgt at Reg/Nat, one CCSMgt chairs National 1Sgt's council).

emphasis mine

I don't see where non-military CAP NCO's could progress above MSgt in this idea.

E7/MSgt/1Sgt, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/USAirF.insignia.e7.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e7.afmil.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b2/USAirF.insignia.e7firstsgt.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e7firstsgt.afmil.png)
E8/SMSgt/1Sgt, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/69/USAirF.insignia.e8.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e8.afmil.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/USAirF.insignia.e8firstsgt.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e8firstsgt.afmil.png)
E9/CMSgt/1Sgt. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/USAirF.insignia.e9.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e9.afmil.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/USAirF.insignia.e9firstsgt.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e9firstsgt.afmil.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0a/USAirF.insignia.e9comm.afmil.png/60px-USAirF.insignia.e9comm.afmil.png)

I've gone back & forth a bit on MSgt, but right now I have it as earnable with completion of the mod'd Lvl V & TIG (recall E1/AB covers pre-Lvl I, & the COP level covers one promotin as well). However, E8 & E9 are not earnable by professional development, just like Brig & Maj Gen are not earnable by professional development now, nor would they by under this new system. Anyone CAN get to those grades tough. One way is prior-service NCOs keep their grade. The other is to be elected by the members to serve as 1Sgt. IF you're 9 months into CAP & your Sq decides to make you their rep to Gp, then you put on MSgt/1Sgt stripes for your one year term, when you get done you take them off & should be just in time to promote from Amn to A1C. If later on in your career you are chosen by Gp (Sqs in no Gp states) to rep at Wg, then you put on 1Sgt(E8) - the chair of the Wing Council & the rep to Region both get 1Sgt(E9). The region & national council members are all 1Sgt(E9), the chair at national is CCMSgt(E9). Now, if you've complete Lvl V before or during one of those terms, then you can keep the MSgt/SMSgt/CMSgt stripes w/o the diamond (or star). It's basically the same thing as CAC, just using NCO grades in place of dif color cords. I think it's a pretty slick solution personally & does great service to those top grades while adding a very nice democratic voice of the troops while maintaining the command structure above. I assume the overwhelming majority of members elected to these positions will be non-prior-service, as they would be most representative of our membership.

Maj C,
For an enlisted side to be created it would have to be in conjunction with more significant & legitimate training of officer candidates meeting higher standards. The two things are linked & complimentary. You don't want everyone to be officers, you want most people not to be - like 20-25% officers to enlisted. You want a lot of people that qualify for officer to choose to stay enlisted, based on the duties & PD/PME training requirements. There is no several weeks to take off, there are NO weeks to take off. The officer training program defined here requires one year of regular meetings (80-90% attendance) & some hard work (about 8hrs/month) on computer modules you're guided thru with the help of a mentor. That's probably the same level of time you're putting in right now.

Yes it does require a remaking of the character of CAP from the ground up, and would be a slightly rocky transition, but the product on the backside goes back to our roots, follows the example of our parent org, and puts out common sense product that outsiders can see & understand because it bear resemblence to what they know, and that in turn makes them comfortable with us, which means mutual respect as peers & trust in our abilities which is the foundation upon which we reach for the stratosphere on new critical missions for America. See that logic? Common sense = dramatic improvement = REAL missions for America that make our military strong so it can fight harder.

Capt Rajca,
I think you can break this down too far.
Instructor: I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like the cadet sponsor member status either. I guess we can look at that, but I'd rather pull people all the way in or not have them at all. The last thing cadets want is another teacher. What they want & what they respect is an adult that has a shared basic knowledge of military skills. I'm willing to be open minded on this one, but I'm not sure it's appropriate & it could be divisive.

Enlisted: That's a definition of Airmen, but not of NCOs. Indeed the enlisted ranks under my version ARE the primary operators in all sides of CAP.

Warrant: I disagree here, what you're describing is an NCO, people that operate at the advanced ES & direct leadership role. I can see use of WOs OR an enlisted corps, but not both. The AF doesn't use WO, so I don't think we should either. We might talk about advanced appointments to E2-E3 for certain skills (which the military does also), but that system is FAR overused & abused in the current grade system, so lets just get the change made & let the dust settle, THEN we can get a clearer picture of what skills deserve what advantage & why.

Officer: I think we had a pretty good system together. We did require a BA, but granted waivers at the associates level plus special skills or professional experience appropriate to Sq work. The specific reason that says a waiver rather than setting that as the requirement is so a subjective review of the education & skills/experience can occur to determine if this person is officer material & if they can mentally & psychologically pass the training. The standard to ENTER OCS at both the national guard & the regular Army level is NOT a BA, but rather 90 hours, & you must complete a degree while in training (guard obviously) or shortly thereafter. I've meaned that down with the benefit of discussion to account for the experience & additional skills CAP members may bring to the table. An excellent example of someone who would meet this waiver requirement is an LPN, or an insterment pilot with two-years college.

Chaplains & such would get the same direct appointments offered by the AF, after completing a transition course (3-month version of OTS), and as you stated they would not be elligible for command until they complete the PME for their current grade & could only promote by doing the same program as everyone else. No couple years to LtCol BS. It's especially important to hold true to the AF on this one as our chaplains are already on loan & some of our other professionally degreed individuals may be in the future, and we need to meet expectations.

Regarding a temp/brevet grade of 1Lt/Capt to command a Sq that doesn't have any officers... I can see that, BUT I want to keep it out of the discussion for a couple reasons at this stage. The first is the idea that all officer grade should be breveted by position as the CGAux does it, which would be VERY bad for us, strictly un-military, and not accomplish any of the core objectives we're going for at all. Second, the reason a Sq CC is slotted at the Capt level is because it theoretically requires the skills that must be attained to reach Capt. It kind of defeats the purpose when you put someone w/o the right skills in a slot & call them this grade or that just so it looks right from the outside. Now that said, I MIGHT be willing to talk about it a bit, but AFTER we get the big picture taken care of, I have some alternate ideas on unit alignment also that might just fix that situation as well.

Transition we've talked about a bit. It's workable with a system that granfathers people that earn what they got or revert. Paradigm shift & it'll move some hard headed people out teh door, but then they'd be the same ones that have stagnated & don't want to work with a changing CAP also. It's not that complicated though & very workable.

Point system:
I think we have the officer progression down pretty solid just folowing the AF model. That system of review boards w/ an AF vote is pretty strong. On the enlisted side, I see you talking point system & I'm intrigued. I've leaned on keeping the traditional adult program (swapping out for enlisted PMEs) with a pretty straight forward training plus TIG moves you up logic like we work on now. However, I could see an additional poitn requirement that ensures the member is active & hard working. It sounds complicated, and maybe a bit abrasive for current members, but interesting. You'd just have to make sure it's fair & clean up eServices a ton so you could manage logging of that data.

Dennis,

So in a sense, you're talking about a WAPS (Weighted Airman Promotion System), the RealAirForce's promotion system for NCOs. With some tweakage you described above, it could be accommodated to CAP's senior member program.

Here's my take on what could be a possible promotion system for a future CAP enlisted corps:

Newly joined senior members are without grade (= Airman Basic) until such time as they complete Level I, when they sew on Airman.

Promotion to Airman First Class on a fully qualified basis based on attendance and participation in CAP activities after 9 months total CAP service to A1C.

18 months total CAP service, 12 months as an A1C, completion of a technician rating and completion of a CAP Airman Leadership School for a fully-qualified promotion to SrA.

Allow very limited 'below the zone promotions' for those few dedicated, hard-charging CAP members who complete additional training and professional development requirements. For those members, reduce the TIS/TIG six months.

This is where WCAPPS (Weighted CAP Promotion System) kicks in. The system takes into account time in service, time in grade, professional development, and certain awards and decorations into points to where a minimum point cutoff score is achieved for promotion. Promotion cycles would be done once yearly at the group and wing level.

I'll leave the finer details to be hashed out in this thread, but this might be a start.

Well, I don't know, I think it's worth putting some ideas on the table & seeing what comes of it. I like something that considers activity & contribution, that's taken care of on the officer side in at a promotion board. I don't think I'd take a points system so far as to be THE determining factor like WAPS is. I still think TIG/TIS & professional development should be the primary focus. What I'm open to is some kind of scoring system that would follow a set of minimum requirements (stated a few posts back) & allow below & in the zone promotions. What I mean by that is that there should be a TIG number set, but based on points: up to 20%/year can be promoted early (within reason - say 2 years rather than 3); another 60-75% are in the zone (between 3 & 4 years); and the remaining 5-20% are behind the zone (over four years). The logic there is certainly not to punish anyone, it is to be prompt with earned promotions & reward people who contribute. Regular standard participation gets you right on the TIG target & those decisions should be made ahead of time so that's your actual put on date, not when you are allowed to submit paperwork & wait 6-9 months. The highspeed folks get a chance to move up a bit faster, but with some reasonable limits & safeguards in place. Then the inactive crowd can still promote behind the zone w/o even participating at all - sometimes people's work schedules (or things like deployments, & life in general) get in the way for a year or two & we shouldn't punish them for that.

That's my initial thoughts on it, but it needs more development. It's a ncie secondary/supportive element to add on the back end of a strong program.

Let me get back to an earlier post. There are in CAP Officers that under theold system earned their grade by taking what used to be ECI 2, SOS, ACSC ,ICAF, and AWC. All were USAF applicable courses except ECI 2 which was a CAP specific course. Now if you come up with a plan that requires lesser style NCO courses are you going to demote these people? Freeze them in grade until they take the lesser courses? It seems that your system works fine for NEW members, but you're ignoring the training requirements that used to be in place which were more professional than the NCO training you mention.
Perhaps the way to develop better leadership is to go back to the earlier program where the AFDLI courses are required for promotion above the rank of Captain. The main problem with CAP grades is the training of 2 LT to Captain. That's where you'll normally find uniform violations, lack of leadership skills or just plain indifference to the CAP program.

Quote from: BillB on December 10, 2006, 10:01:09 PM
Let me get back to an earlier post. There are in CAP Officers that under theold system earned their grade by taking what used to be ECI 2, SOS, ACSC ,ICAF, and AWC. All were USAF applicable courses except ECI 2 which was a CAP specific course. Now if you come up with a plan that requires lesser style NCO courses are you going to demote these people? Freeze them in grade until they take the lesser courses? It seems that your system works fine for NEW members, but you're ignoring the training requirements that used to be in place which were more professional than the NCO training you mention.
Perhaps the way to develop better leadership is to go back to the earlier program where the AFDLI courses are required for promotion above the rank of Captain. The main problem with CAP grades is the training of 2 LT to Captain. That's where you'll normally find uniform violations, lack of leadership skills or just plain indifference to the CAP program.

Two points there.

First, our problems aren't limited to 2Lt-Capt. Certainly field grade officers don't have the same problems as junior officers, but then tehy aren't junior officers, they face a whole new higher class of problems that we don't prepare them to deal with. That in turn causes countles sproblems or at least inefficiencies at higher echelons, and makes for a tiny pool of people ready to step up to the upper levels of command & the interaction w/ the AF & State govts that are required in those jobs. We owe our members & the organization to understand teh height of our standards is proportional to the heights we can reach as an organization.

Second, transitions. The plan would be to evaluate everyone individually. You'll get a letter saying:

QuoteYou're currently blank grade; the requirements of that grade in the new system are XYZ; we've reviewed your records & find that you have completed X & Y, but not Z; if you believe this to be in error, that your records are incomplete, or you've completed a coure from our list of equivilents or another course you feel should count for this credit, pls submit electronically to NHQ/PD; if you fail to take any action in 24 months, you'll be reverted in grade to blank enlisted grade, if you then want to re-earn your current officer grade you'll have to start over from scratch in the new system. In your peronal case I believe it's going to say you're a LtCol, you've completed Lvl IV & ACSC, therefore you've completed all requirements for LtCol under the new system; further, you've completed Lvl V & AWC so are promotable to Col if assigned to a position that carries such a grade & will retain that grade after serving your term.

It's not that complicated. A moderate number of peopl emay need to take SOS or ACSC, but it's not that big a deal. The bigger issue is at the bottom of the chain. With current 2Lts or SMs, they will need to meet the req's for 1Lt under the new system. All new members from that date on would go under the new system.

OK...now for my solution.

The biggest thing that hinders this and all "good workable ideas" here is the TRANSITION.  Dennis, Bill and numerous other have presented good food for thought...but there has to be a workable transition.

1) Freeze everyone in rank and let them "backfill."  Those above Captain will need to take a Weekend course that is intense.  Best done at a militay installation by some Military Authority.  Payment will be on the CAP Officer.

2) Those below Captain will have to backfill the new criteria for officership.  If they choose not to then they have chosen to remain a 2Lt or 1Lt forever, or until they choose to meet the criteria.

3) A new form, CAPF 12, will become a two page form that will require a person to indicate their skill sets and provide documentation.  The new enlisted ranks would be for those who seek to serve out of a command loop.

Thus, Airmen and NCOs would make up the bulk Scanners, UDF and Ground teams.  Officers would be command types and Pilots.

4) An OTS system would be in place for a commission to 2LT.  This system would be open to to anyone.  It would have to be rigorous enough to "put teeth into CAP Officership.

5) Everyone wishing to become an officer, remember there will be "Grandfathered Officers" to which that alternate route mentioned earlier should apply for advancement.

6) Since CAP Officership is radically different from Military Officership, should former officers have to take this course to retain their rank?  Unknown???

Thus, if people really want "an enlisted corps" it must provide something that is radically different than what exists now.

If such a "corps" existed, would there be the monolithic commander structure where the enlisted would have to extend the same sort of position an ACTIVE DUTY NCO would have to show an ACTIVE duty officer?

Currently there is an egalitarian ideal in CAP.  Would creating a "Officer Elite,"  "NCO corps" or "Enlisted Brotherhood" create a division we don't have now?

Personally, I don't think anyone really cares about our rank/grade but us.  I don't think it matters.  CAP is what it is and is not what it is not.  If one tries to look at CAP through the USAF rubric, that results are false.  We are volunteers...remember that always.  No pay...things done for "the love of it" and "with a passion for CAP."

Becareful with Pandora's Box...once there is little "love for CAP" or "no passion for it."  Then we are toast.

I will remain in CAP no matter what happens en re this sort of thing.  Those that quit and attack from without...well, let's just say I can't see it their way.

How are we radically different from the military, and is that necessarily a permenant condition? It seems to me that they volunteer to serve their country for the same reasons we do & they sure as hell don't do it for the great pay. The way I see it, they get paid because of the potential to deploy to combat & because they are legally bound to show up for service if they like it or not. Anything else is a false construct that can be changed. We work in an AF system. Our job is to help them accomplish their missions & evolve with them as those missions change. Look at an SDF. They are unpaid volunteer civilians that are free to not deploy if they choose, yet they see themselves as part of their parent service (the national guard). I think anything else is an excuse to justify a tolerance of laziness & low standards.

I think the single biggest driver of this discussion and the various ideas for reducing the number of officers in CAP is the lack of leadership and, dare I say it, common sense. I have seen far to many LT's, Capt's, some Maj's, and a few Lt Col's behaving - consistantly - like airmen (E-1, E-2). Too many CAP officers forget that what they're wearing on their shoulders doesn't mean the same thing as a military officer wearing the same thing. CAP desperately needs good leaders. In the past, many have joined of their own free will, but lately we aren't getting the numbers we need. To help counter our turnover rates, we need to offer CAP members something they can use outside of CAP. Good leadership training is always in demand, but no one wants to conduct it. Good leadership training can be applied outside of CAP and can, on occasion, result in financial benefits for the trainee. If you can provide good leadership training and a member gets a promotion of raise at work because of it, they will remain an active member longer because they have seen a direct positive benefit to being in CAP.

On transition, ideally, every senior member would be individually evaluated, but I can see national having a fit over the work required to do so. I think a relatively simple chart would work. Do some research to find out what previous officer training courses has been completed and incorporate those into the chart. Obviously, those courses that are no longer conducted will have to have effective date ranges, but otherwise, it should be fairly simple.

One of the biggest group of stagnent officers we have is pilots. Most have joined, completed Level I, gotten their bars, and stopped there. They do not seek leadership positions, but heaven help you if you do not recognize their bars. An example of pilots not wanting to do the work even keep the planes flying happened in a senior squadron I was a member of. 80 members, 35-40 pilots. The commander had to threaten to ground the aircraft to get a pilot to step to do the paperwork to enable the pilots to fly. The commander didn't think it was right to have a non-pilot saddled with that responsibility. Unfortunetely, I have encountered too many non-performing pilots in CAP to agree that they should get an automatic commission. Tie it to something that benefits CAP, i.e. MP, O-flight Pilot, etc, and I might accept it, but Capt just because you're a CFII, no. Not to say there aren't many pilots that are very active and work hard for CAP, but they don't make up the majority of the ones I have encountered.

I've been watching this tread for a while and throwing out a couple of suggestions as well.

What I like to hammer down is....what exactly is the problem?

Is the problem that the current CAP rank system produces officers that are competent (by CAP standards)?  That is your newly promoted CAP major can write a decent policy letter let alone plan and run an week end activity.

Is the problem CAP officers do not get any respect form "real" officers because they basically walk off the street and six months later they are 2nd Lts?

Or is the problem that we the rank on the shoulder has nothing to do with actual level of responsibility?

Any rework of the CAP rank system (big or small) must first establish what the actual goal of that system is.

Some of the people who post suggestions of a new program seem to want CAP to become some sort of USAF light.  That is, they want a CAP officer to be just as qualified as an active duty officer.  I don't necessary have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem is that they want to use the same exact model that the USAF uses to make an officer for CAP officers.

Here is why that does not make sense.

First...the USAF Officer acquisition system is basically three fold.  Academy, ROTC, and OCS.  At the end of which you usually have a 22 year old who is in my opinion about as qualified to lead as your average 18 year old Spaatz.  Some may be more qualified than other but basically you have a college degree and the basic tool kit to start to learn how to lead.

Then....the officer starts to get his real training.

If he is lucky...he is not a pilot and will be immediately (after his technical training) put into a position of leadership under the mentorship of experienced officers and senior NCOs.  After about five years you got a young captain with a lot of experience.  If he is a pilot....all that is out the window.  He may have to wait until he is a Major until he has any real leadership responsibilities and may be a Lt Col or Col before he has to supervise any enlisted personnel.  Five years or so as a Capt and he puts on Major.  

Now this makes an effective leader who is ready to take on some good leadership duties.

Now let's take CAP.

Who is our primary initial recruitment prospect?  It is not some 18 year old coming out of high school.  It is not even a 22 year old college graduate.  Our SMWOG tend to be older professionals in the mid to late 30's.

Requiring a college degree as a gate keeper for this group of people is just not necessary.  10+ years post high school is more than enough to establish if someone has the gumption to continue with his officer training.  Also...CAP does not really need a gatekeeper function because we are not investing any money into these new officers, unlike the real military.  If a new CAP officer does not seem to have what it take for leadership...we just don't give him any leadership position.  He can continue to be a follower and a doer and no one is hurt.  The USAF can't afford that.  If you are not effective as a leader they need to ease you out to make room for others (hence the up or out).

Therfore....any grade system that requires a college degree as a gate keeper function is an automatic non-starter.  It will hinder your ability to find and keep good leadership and it makes not real sense other than to follow the USAF's model.

The second problem with following the USAF model is that....there are exactly (more or less) the same amount of leadership slots as there are leaders to fill them.  The USAF acquires enough 2d Lts to ensure that there are enough Capts to fill the jobs.  They only promote those captains as the major slots come open and the same on up the line.

CAP cannot do that because we have no ability to move leaders around as the USAF can.  As a major's slot comes open in Greenland some luck officer gets his 12 month remote tour.  CAP cannot do that.  They are tied to local geographical areas.  Yes they can ask leaders to move across town to help out a struggling unit but more than an hours drive and it's no dice.

The next problem with the USAF model is money.  The USAF has it but CAP does not.  They can afford to send a Capt to SOS for a month.  In CAP you have to take leave, pay for your own transportation and pay for the training.

Want to guess how much it costs to go to Maxwell for a month?  About $5000 plus the cost of the school.

Air War College is even worse.

The next problem with the USAF model...is that it assumes a good support structure.  It assumes that there is a commander there ready to mentor his new officers.  That this mentor is has the tools to help shape the officer and that the officer has duties that are fit for him and will help him grow.

CAP has none of these.  Yes good squadrons will have a similar program...but we just don't have the same manpower support and control as the USAF does.

Finally, the USAF model just does not fit.  Leading your typical cadet squadron or even a large composite squadron with a lot of planes is not the same as leading the smallest USAF squadron.  The problems you have to deal with are completely different.  Yes the leadership principles are the same...but 80% of the training a USAF squadron gets would be totally useless for a CAP commander, and it will still require us to fill in the CAP specifics that the USAF course does not even touch.

Okay...that is my rant about CAP ranks systems.

What we need to do is develop a rank system that develops CAP officers to be able to handle the jobs a CAP officer is going to get.  IMHO that is what we have now.  Yes there are a lot of problems with it, but 90% of those problems deal with quality or quantity control as opposed to being a bad system.

So...instead of creating CAP enlisted corps and CAP OTS course.  We can focus on making our existing program better.  We can focus on making the training we do give is meaningful and quality.  We can focus or efforts in insuring that any CAP Capt (Maj, Lt Col) is up to the standards of every other CAP Capt.  We can ensure that we are bottlenecking quality leaders by not providing timely training.

If we need to clear the deck of officers who do not lead so those few who do stand out, we can easily make the rank and file Flight Officers (or warrant officers if you don't like the FO title).  Other than that any other rework will not be worth the pay off.  Just as we have former NCO's who do not want to be officers I think we would have even more potential SM's who would not join because we are making them enlisted guys.

QuoteLook at an SDF. They are unpaid volunteer civilians that are free to not deploy if they choose

Incorrect. State Defense Force members are members of a state military organization.  They are not civilians.  From a legal point of view they are exactly the same as the National Guard (when the National Guard is not in federal service, which is most of the time).  While none get paid for attending meetings, depending on what state you are in, they may get paid for being put on state active duty for emergency or other use. 

After reading the reply by lordmonar, I am now of the mind that there is no need for an NCO structure and the best course of action is to simply better develop what we have now.

Dennis' assumption that the current structure prepetuates laziness and low standards contributed greatly to that descision.  Why, because he is talking about you and I...and every member of every unit in CAP.

CAP is a community driven Civil Defense force of volunteers that live and work in the communities we serve....and, just like those minutemen at Lexington, are all called to do extraordinary things in the preformance of duty.    We are also an Auxiliary of the USAF, but we are not active nor reserve members.  Ours has existed since 1941 as a community driven Civil Defense force and as an Auxiliarist organization of the USAF late in that same decade.

Also, arajca mentions improved LEADERSHIP in existing structures.  That is correct.

CAP FELLOWS, if we do our missions well...that sucess speaks for itself.  When the USAF has a policy that allows CAP officers to "fill slots,"with pay, in its ranks, then we can explore week and month long classes as the nominal modus operandi.

Until then, we MUST do our best when we can, with limited resources and all with no pay.  Some 90 percent of our unit's sucess has come from Member Drive, not USAF funds nor CAP Corporate assests.

That drive for CAP that comes from within. Folks, we don't need NCOs and Enlisted Ranks to have that.  We only need your drive to make it work.

River,
We are a federal military organization, and when on missions we are uniformed & acting under military orders - versus non-uniformed means you get shot. The law varies quite a bit from state to state on SDFs, but by international law, they CAP & the CGAux are all in the same boat. The difs in interpretation is just a matter of how it's spun. Practically speaking though, they function exactly like CAP. Anyway, I was referring to the not paid but share cultural identity & seek to adhere to similar standards - of course that all varies too.

Maj C,
Relax. Look around CAP a bit. Look at the quality & capability of our people. Are they good people that work hard, yes absolutely! However, they are not remotely capable of anything close to the kind of responsibility you could put on any military officer of the same grade - the exceptions where they are, that didn't come from anything CAP did to make them that way, and the system of advancement we have doesn't favor those few exceptional people moving into leadership roles. People like to have fun, but they don't like to be forced to look in the mirror & see their flaws then be lectured by someone on how to gain the skills to succeed at a higher level. What we need to do is work smarter not harder. That's what this is about, that & standing beside the AF, AFRes, & ANG as a full member of the team with mutual respect among peers. We need to earn our place in a changing world & that's NOT something that can be done as an individual - not in a 53k member org w/ 65 years of history. I'm not trying to live up to nutty guys flying around w/ a depth charge under the plane, I'm trying to surpass them. We need to do justice to our past by standing on the shoulders of our forbearers, not in their shadow. We have a duty to our members to train them to take the bull by the horns & lead the living hell out of CAP into the future. We need to quit burning people out just to keep our heads above water.

Quote from: DNall on December 11, 2006, 07:30:41 AMHowever, they[CAP Officers] are not remotely capable of anything close to the kind of responsibility you could put on any military officer of the same grade

Hey DNall! So what?  They are not real officers, they don't have the same responsibilities of real officers, and they don't need to be real officers.  That is the point me and the Major are trying to say. 

Quote from: DNall on December 11, 2006, 07:30:41 AM
People like to have fun, but they don't like to be forced to look in the mirror & see their flaws then be lectured by someone on how to gain the skills to succeed at a higher level. What we need to do is work smarter not harder. That's what this is about, that & standing beside the AF, AFRes, & ANG as a full member of the team with mutual respect among peers.

But I did not join CAP to work that hard.  I as a CAP officer have no illusions that I am in any way shape or form the Peer of Active Duty AF, ANG or AFRes Officers and NO ONE in CAP should.  They should respect us for our professionalism and they should respect us for our volunteerism, and they should respect us for our adoption of the USAF culture and traditions.  But they should not respect us as peers...except as maybe honorary peers.  The let us join the club...but we all know the score.   An honorary PhD may get a Dr in front of your name...but not a job at the local university.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to inflate his own ego.  In all of CAP the only jobs that come close to what real officers do...it Wing, Regional and the National commander jobs.  Even the squadron commanders of larger squadron do not have it anywhere as hard as real officers.

Quote from: DNall on December 11, 2006, 07:30:41 AM
We need to earn our place in a changing world & that's NOT something that can be done as an individual - not in a 53k member org w/ 65 years of history. I'm not trying to live up to nutty guys flying around w/ a depth charge under the plane, I'm trying to surpass them. We need to do justice to our past by standing on the shoulders of our forbearers, not in their shadow. We have a duty to our members to train them to take the bull by the horns & lead the living hell out of CAP into the future. We need to quit burning people out just to keep our heads above water.

Yes you are right...we need to earn our place in a changing world.  We need to find out what we do well and sell that to anyone who will pay for it.  We need to work with our existing customers and find out if there is anything else we can do for them.  We don't need to rework our internal promotion system and rank system to do any of that.  We do need to take the existing system and make sure that we are doing it to the best of our ability.  We need to make sure that those who step up to the plate and take on the jobs that need to be done are rewarded.  We need to support our leadership even if we don't know where they are taking us.  We need to ask for guidance when we don't understand our commander's vision.

And we can do all of this with out changing one thing about the CAP professional development program.  We can do all this just by enforcing the program as written and mentoring our members to the best of our abilities.

I just read with great interest the letter the Iowa Wing Commander sent to Maj.Gen. Pineda about how they as a Wing came to where they are now. I read all 14 pages and I found myself agreeing to many of the things they have done, the only thing they didn't do was go far enough on the OTS, it should have been a year and the standards for membership should have been tightened somehow, although I doubt they could have done anything more and still keep within CAP policy.....although I suspect the OTS requirement they have probably kept some people from going thru with it..so in a sense it acts like a gatekeeper for now.

  I really liked what he had to say about the term "volunteer" I personally don't like that term either and for the same reasons...it does carry a bad misconception, it's almost always perceived negatively. a better term is the one Iowa uses: "A professional who donates their time, talent and treasure for their communities". I am glad they dropped the term volunteer, I think national needs to address that now and stop placing so much emphasis on that term. We need to make sure we are not shooting ourselves in the foot with using terminology that carry a negative connotation to them; IE: Senior Member or Volunteer.

  The thing I'm really loving about Iowa was that they now have the same job protections as the National Guard, if we could get that same level of protection just as Iowa has it things would be sooo much better and that one benefit alone would work wonders with legitimizing CAP in others perceptions. it can be very hard if not impossible for members to get off work to perform a mission either State level or Air Force assigned Federal level. a law that mandates employers to give time off for CAP missions and then to Pay that Officer if they work for a Governmental entity, otherwise the leave is without pay for private employers is something we all need if we are going to trully do what National wants us to do.."Performing missions for America". Also none of the leave the employers have to give can be charged against the employees sick, personal or vacation time. What a great thing, I really wish Texas had that statute. I really wish we had it Nation wide.

  I would love to see CAP work real hard to get the whole organization at the level that Iowa is at now, and then work together to make it even better.

QuoteThe law varies quite a bit from state to state on SDFs,

They ALL say that SDFs are members of the state's organized milita just like the Army and Air National Guard.  They do not function like CAP.  When they are on duty they have to follow orders or face potential criminal penalties under their state's military code. 

CAP members may be acting for the military but we ARE NOT a federal MILITARY organization, we are civilians.

That being said I fully believe that SDFs, CAP, and the CG Aux face many of the same problems and could learn quite a bit from each other if there was actually any degree of coordination between them, which for the most part, isn't the case.   

Regarding time off for CAP work -- Iowa isn't the first to have that protection though there aren't very many states like that and they differ in how it works. 

I'm sorry I've been a bit deficient on this conversation. I got busy and forgot about it, but this topic is top priority for me, as most of you know. Plus, I hin it's an excellent conversation to have just cause it makes us better individually as officers. I'll try to get back to teh main focus tmrw, but let me grab river's sub-conversation right quick...

River, "state's organized malitia" is a LEGALLY meaningless term. The national guard is the legal milita as defined by the constititution & nothing else has legal authority. I know it seems like you can debate teh subject, and yes the states do have authority to define the terms for themselves, but that's not how it works. If you recall your history - the civil war for instance, states would commission a prominat citizen colonel & allow him to raise a regiment in the state's name. Those regiments would then be certified by the state & the central govt could "recognize" them & accept them to service or not. National guard officers who attend state OCS recieve state commissions, then if called to federal service or after six months they are granted federal recognition and commissioned in the Army. SDF officers do not get state commissions. They are LEGALLY civiliains in every way shape & form. The extent to which they are able to execute law enforcement powers while on state active duty falls under the provisions for duly appointed officer (TAG) to deputize individuals (for instance in the case of a posse - limited scope of orders, short-term). Legally speaking, they are exactly the same as CAP. When they are on state active duty under the command of TAG, and when CAP members are on an AFAM under the direction of AF personnel, both are by international law considered to be members of the military. The CGAux is the same deal. The legal distinctions are minor & really can be written up to interpretation & attitude more than force of law.

Not that it matters!!! The point is meeting something like their standards so we can make some sense of this screwed up thing we have here, and then to push forward into the AF mission so we can help with things that matter (and justify our existance & budget). Plus we don't have a lot of choice because the professional standards of the AF have improved since 1947, and now with NIMS since 2001 the standards of the emergency response community have made us obselete unless we're willing to step up. What a fully certified top notch professional volunteer firefighter is to his paid counterpart, we have to become that to AF personnel. This conversation is about how to do that. What makes sense, what should it look like to integrate with them, what do we have to do to be viewed as peers so we'll in turn get missions as peers (within statutory limits) - that would be my goal for CAP.

QuoteSDF officers do not get state commissions. They are LEGALLY civiliains in every way shape & form.

Incorrect.  They do get state commissions.  In fact, some members of the NG get state commissions that differ from their federal commissions as well.

QuoteThe national guard is the legal milita as defined by the constititution & nothing else has legal authority.

Wrong.  The constitution does not mention the National Guard.  It talks about militia.  And basically, SDFS are no different than militia units that the US had prior to the formation of the modern National Guard system in the early 1900s.  Up until that time state militia members did not have any federal status either.  The only real difference is that current federal law keeps SDFs from being called up into federal service, but that is just law and can be changed.  Heck, by its very nature that law recognizes that they are state military forces.  You are also forgetting about Naval Militias operated by states.  They are authorized under Title 10 and it appears that they could be federalized (as they were in WWII and before) though there is absolutely no evidence that DoD has any procedures in place to do this and is unlikely to even consider it. 

DNall, I've been studying SDFs for years and you need to trust me on this one.  But, this isn't the forum to discuss this issue.  If you want to, go over to the SDF board on military.com and those guys will be more than happy to whup up on you with all the facts you could ever want. 

DNall, you might want to check out this website for accurate info on one state's SDF: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/

At least in CA SDF officers do receive state commissions, can be called to State Active Duty and are often paid for SAD

The structure is dif in dif places. Generally the couple called "state military reserve" are a good bit different than the otehr end of the spectrum. I'm just saying it's highly variable is all.

Again, the point being States w/ actually functional SDFs use them with a degree of interoperability to supplement & stand in for their normal guard people. Obviously to do this they must meet basically the same standards. The presence or lack of a state commission, nor the legal framework around them, isn't why SDFs can fill for NG officers in a disaster. Selecting teh right people, professionally training them as officers, technically training them in the specific profession... having someone on hand that can actually stand relief for that officer is why they get that call. CAP can't do that cause we take anyone with a checkbook - true or not, that's what AF thinks & you don't break that cycle to you prove it to them using their grading system - and qual system.

The concept here being that if we want CAP to be able to work with AF on serious meaningful missions that protect our country, & the lives/property of her citizens,  then they can't be thinking of us as morons incapable of functioning at their level. Can we do that now? Not a chance! Think we can if we change some stuff & get to rolling though? yeah I'm sure of it.

This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

I think you'd be suprised  how many Officers we would really have if we did have to meet 50% or 75% of USAF standards.  On the Portal, we had one thread bemoaning the fact that we didn't have enough people to meet the minimum officers standards and we also had a 7-8 page thread about who had a college degree and where it was from.   There are also an awful lot of RLO's & RLNCO's with degrees out here in CAP land.  Now assuming you throw out age and physical ability standards, I think we'd have a lot of ruffled feathers, but we would still have more than enough Officers to keep the show on the road.

Al,

The only problem I have with the college degree gate keeper issue....is that it is bogus!

Even on active duty having a degree is not an indicator about a persons ability to be come an idea officer.

I accept that the USAF needs some sort of gate keeper before they invest that kind of money on their future leaders.  But CAP does not have that necessity.

Sure....let's develop a way that we separate the not so good guys from the good guys....but a college degree is an arbitrary requirement when it is applied to CAP.

I for instance joined before I finished my degree....I would not have been able to become squadron commander and CAP at Misawa would have folded.  I know of lots of very capable officers in CAP and the USAF who never had a degree.

My father was 22 years in the USAF retired as a Lt Col, Navigator.  Served as executive officer to a MAJCOM Deputy Commander for Logistics (3 star).  Dropped out of college after 2 years.  Never went back, never got his masters...but was a fine officer.  I can name 10-15 SM's in my squadron who are as professional and as dedicated as any USAF officer but they do not have college degrees.

Again.....lets put some standards into the system...but let's make sure they are intelligent standards.  I mean you are going to let some 22 year old kid with a liberal arts degree in Art Appreciation get inside the door of the leadership track...but you are going to block the everyone else...no matter how successful a leader they are just because they did not get a degree.

Sorry...I just cannot support this sort of an idea.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

How many officers does it take to run CAP, not members now, officer slots? I mean subtract the cadets, subtrac tthe massive inactive population... you're down to what around 12k adults spread all over the country, give or take a couple thousand. What does that require, 500, 1000, 1500, 3000 officers? Not 12k for sure.

There's a conversation going on under ES about how we can get NIMS compliant when IS300/400 are multi-day mid week affairs, that CAP needs to get people instructor certified & conduct them on split wknds. Simple enough right. So what's the big deal? Takes 90 days to make regular officers - doc/lawyers/etc do that in 30 days w/ some correspondence work in front. Army NG does it in 18months of wknd/mo 2wks a year - that's pretty much a CAP meeting schedule.

The plan I put up is DVD based training modules done at your own pace requiring about 4-8hrs/mo in combination w/ an appointed officership mentor to guide you thru the program & use your time at Sq over that year to make use of that training in an OJT setting. John wants to add a couple wknds in there to give them some practical experience w/ basic skills, feel lik ethey've accomplished something, & build relationships w/ other officer candidates. That sounds reasonable enough if you can make the logistics work. I think that's a pretty reasonable adaptation to our unique environment & situation.

Let me get you a couple others quickly also...

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.

You know if you look around the AF, there's LtCols that have commanded units, and there's LtCols that have never had more than two people under them at any point in their career. Some are hardcore line officer leaders that can pretty much take the gate of hell if need be, and others are scientists or maint or supply or moblility officers (not to slight any of those professions). The fact is you just don't know what tat person's experience is or why they got promoted along thru their career. Some are great & some are not, most are in between somewhere.

I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one). No, on an individual level AF people tend to be respectful of CAP officers & judge them for themselves. It's when you get moron walking thru a base looking & acting like an idiot & niether AF nor CAP can do much about the big picture that you get problems. Our problem now really isn't that we suck, we aren't that bad really, but we need to step up big & have them see us doing that. I just think we haven't kept pace w/ the professional develoment evolution of the AF since WWII, & I don't think that's so hard to fix w/ some tenacity.

Just for comparison, the Coast Guard Reserve Officer Indoctrination Program is only 3 weeks.  They of couse would have additional technical training after that depending on what they're doing, but the basic course is short enough that CAP could produce something fairly equal to it. 

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

It's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

Quote from: sandman on January 07, 2007, 09:12:36 AM
It's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

Go to ths webpage...and interesting read on historical ARMU Corps of Engineer head covers.  Here is what is says about these types you mentioned.

QuoteCorps of Engineers Civilian Captain's Service Cap

Civilians have always served in supporting roles within the U.S. Army. Their contribution is nowhere more important than within the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army traditionally has operated a wide variety of watercraft. The civilian personnel of the Floating Plant crew the many tugboats, dredges, tow boats, barges, and other watercraft the Corps operates on the waterways of the United States. In order to identify the officers serving on dredges, towboats, and ships of 60 feet or more, the Corps directed they wear uniforms starting in 1969. The uniforms are unique within the Army in that they are based on those worn by a completely different service—the Navy. This seemingly odd switch is actually traditional for the Army's boat crews, both military and civilian.

The Floating Plant's civilian officers wear their Navy-inspired service uniforms, including a visored service dress cap, while on duty. These caps are of the "convertible" type in that they have removable covers so they can be used for several orders of dress by simply changing the cover. This example uses the khaki cover normally associated with the summer service uniform. The badge, which also was approved in 1969, is unique to the Corps' Floating Plant. It consists of the Engineer castle, surmounted by the national eagle, with an anchor superimposed over the castle.

Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 10:53:25 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

Not a good analogy.  The NG picks up guns and kills bad guys in Iraq. They are part of the DoD's main line of business.  We're not.  If we were, we'd be the NG, and therefore woudn't be needed.

Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 10:53:25 PM
I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one).

I wouldn't be surprised at all - I walk both sides of that fence (active duty and CAP).  But that goes both ways - volunteer group leadership/management  and real military leadership/management are extremely different.  There's really little basis for comparison - you can be great at one and lousy at the other.  All the more reason to acknowledge the differences with a different grade structure that doesn't try to compare apples to oranges.

Tags and spacing - MIKE

Here's another way to approach this - why do we need grade in CAP at all?  How does it help our missions.


Grade in the real military does a couple of things -

1.  It designates a level of pay. 

2.  It designates a minimum level of responsiblity that the service member have to accept in each and every job he does  (we don't assign Colonels to Second Lieutenant jobs, even if they want a break).

3  It  identifies who's in charge when things get chaotic. If your normal leadership had just got blown up, follow the ranking guy.

4.  It provides some universal authority to leaders, allowing them to step and and correct things even outside their normal scope of responsiblity.

5.  It confers status, giving people a reason (along with pay) to better themselves and perform, in order to get promoted and gain more status.


So.....what does rank give us in CAP?

#5.  That's it.  Status.  And not much of that.

To examine the other points

#1 - Pay - we don't get paid, so we don't need grade for this.

#2 - Minimum level of responsibility - wont' work in a volunteer organization.  If we don't let Colonels to only 2d Lt work when they need a break, they'll have to quit. I was a Wing Guy, now I'm back in a squadron for a while, working way below my grade.  How can you not allow me to do that?   The only way CAP can use rank in this way is to make it temporary and tied to position.

#3 - Who's in charge.  Today, the guy in charge is the appointed commander or project officer, or IC, regardless of pay grade.  In our most critical missions, leadership will always go to the guy with the most training and quals (the IC), not to the highest insignia on the collar.  It would take a lot to change this (for example, promoting all ICs to Lt Col, all GTLs to Captain, etc.)

#4 - Universal Authority.  Today there is none.  As a Lt Col, I cannot order a 2d Lt not in my chain of command to do a durned thing.  You can't be kicked out of CAP for disobeying the orders of an officer not in your chain, as long as you're polite about it.  This could be fixed, but will still cause problems given the way we organize for missions.


Could we bastardize the system to make it work?  Mebbe.  But why?  What does it get us?  How does it make us better.

I wonder how many folks who are fighting to make officer rank mean more are planning on being EMs after the changes are made?  Or do we all assume that because our our incredible talents, it'll be those lowly non-qualified senior members saluting us......

The real key (I think) is NOT to make us into little USAF officers.  It's to make us into whatever type of leaders we need to be in order to have a better CAP.  I'd rather see someone start with a clean slate, analyze CAP's missions, functions and membership, and then design an effective system of responsiblity and authority that best fits.

How many of us would quit CAP tomorrow if we still got to do all the things we do today, but didn't get officer rank and titles? 

Quote from: sandman on January 07, 2007, 09:12:36 AMIt's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

My Navy knowledge is the weakest - but  that's an interesting concept.  What I've seen for USA and USAF is civilains in BDUs or ACUs, just like their military brethren, but instead of officer or NCO grade insignia, they have some sort of insignia identifiying them as Department of the Army (or Air Force) civilians.  That way they are officially "on the team", but not confusing things by adopting grade and titles that don't correctly define their responsibility and source of authority.

Tags - MIKE

Quote from: Dragoon on January 07, 2007, 05:51:16 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 10:53:25 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 12:00:10 PM
We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

Not a good analogy.  The NG picks up guns and kills bad guys in Iraq. They are part of the DoD's main line of business.  We're not.  If we were, we'd be the NG, and therefore woudn't be needed.

See I think it's an excellent analogy, and I tell ya why. They had their wknd warrior persona & had to kill it in reality & perception. They did that & now they're a professional force and part of the total force standing side by side w/ active & reserve.

Now I want to take CAP plane, slap a NRBC mapping detector between the seats & FLIR in teh back, put us over transportation routes, the border, ports, coastlines, stadiums, events, etc as not only America's first line of defense but in many case ONLY line of defense to prevent movement of such devices in the US w/o the govt knowing about it. They can't do that w/ sats, they got literally two planes in CONUS w/ that capability & no more coming. DHS thinks its important & is willing to pay for the gear if AF will pay for the missions after its installed. So let me see, where's that busisness of the military again? Right, protecting America isn't it. I think it requires more than we currently are.... meanwhile, our traditional work is about to go away making us closer to obselete.... ket's see, I don't know about you, but I think maybe it's time to consider changing some aspects of who we are.

Maybe it's time to look at what teh guard & reserve did 25 years ago to professionalize their ranks, and maybe we should look at the stadards required of the AF, and maybe we should not cry about our lack of paycheck when we need to get in the game. Just my opinion though.

Quote

Quote from: DNall on January 06, 2007, 10:53:25 PM
I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one).

I wouldn't be surprised at all - I walk both sides of that fence (active duty and CAP).  But that goes both ways - volunteer group leadership/management  and real military leadership/management are extremely different.  There's really little basis for comparison - you can be great at one and lousy at the other.  All the more reason to acknowledge the differences with a different grade structure that doesn't try to compare apples to oranges.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think most of the people on this thread are or have been in the military & in leadership postions on both sides of the fence. I guess an officer could be great in one branch & never able to adjust if they move to another. Not hard to see, supply guy gets a line job & jacks it up - old joke. Sure there are differnces, but we're working on shrinking that gap in a varriety of ways. Even as it is though, I tend to find quality leaders are quality leaders regardless of the circumstance. If you handle the transition of prior-service officers & NCOs to CAP in the right way, and if you build a culture with your people, then they are superb. If you still thnk I'm wrong though, call and talk to my Wing CC, straight over from AF Wg CC slot & short time in CAP to the top, done an outstanding job. All I can say is to the extent they don't cross over cause we're wierd, let's change that. Lets make a CAP that ACTS like the reserves, even if it's not.

Quote from: DNall on January 08, 2007, 05:20:38 AM. If you still thnk I'm wrong though, call and talk to my Wing CC, straight over from AF Wg CC slot & short time in CAP to the top, done an outstanding job. All I can say is to the extent they don't cross over cause we're wierd, let's change that. Lets make a CAP that ACTS like the reserves, even if it's not.

I do think you're wrong in this case.  You can call over and talk to the field grade USAF officer who has caused our Wing several IG complaints because of his behavior with the volunteer leadership, or the Army 0-5 who called all the way to National because he didn't understand why the Wing wouldn't put an Airplane in his son's squadron just so he could use it to learn to fly.  Or the former USAF NCO that went on a tirade to our Wing ES Officer when politely informed that he couldn't wear that blue beret with his CAP BDUs a few years back.

Not that they're all like that - we've had some fine ones as well.  The good ones are worth their weight in gold.

Leading volunteers is different.  You've got a LOT more ego stroking to do, and you have to accept a lot more compromise than you do when you're holding someone's paycheck in your hands.  Some folks make the transition.  Some don't.  It works both ways - some fine CAP leaders just wouldn't measure up on the battlefield (though I think some would).

Quote from: lordmonar on January 06, 2007, 10:27:53 PM
Al,

The only problem I have with the college degree gate keeper issue....is that it is bogus!

Even on active duty having a degree is not an indicator about a persons ability to be come an idea officer.

I accept that the USAF needs some sort of gate keeper before they invest that kind of money on their future leaders.  But CAP does not have that necessity.

Sure....let's develop a way that we separate the not so good guys from the good guys....but a college degree is an arbitrary requirement when it is applied to CAP.

I for instance joined before I finished my degree....I would not have been able to become squadron commander and CAP at Misawa would have folded.  I know of lots of very capable officers in CAP and the USAF who never had a degree.

My father was 22 years in the USAF retired as a Lt Col, Navigator.  Served as executive officer to a MAJCOM Deputy Commander for Logistics (3 star).  Dropped out of college after 2 years.  Never went back, never got his masters...but was a fine officer.  I can name 10-15 SM's in my squadron who are as professional and as dedicated as any USAF officer but they do not have college degrees.

Again.....lets put some standards into the system...but let's make sure they are intelligent standards.  I mean you are going to let some 22 year old kid with a liberal arts degree in Art Appreciation get inside the door of the leadership track...but you are going to block the everyone else...no matter how successful a leader they are just because they did not get a degree.

Sorry...I just cannot support this sort of an idea.

I agree with you.  However my original argument was to address someone who said if CAP Officers who couldn't meet the basic standards were stripped, we wouldn't have enough Officers to run the program.  I don't necessarily see the need for a degree in CAP, but since the USAF uses that as the "gatekeeper", then I believe we have enough people to get the job done, not whether or not it was the right way to do things, but simply that we have the numbers that can make it past the "gate".

The problem with gatekeeping is that, well, it keeps people out.

I know, I know, this sounds like a good thing.  At least to those of us who figure we'll be let IN the gate.  But here are a couple of things to keep in mind.


1.  Dues matter.  Until they don't, National wants lots of members to generate income.  So they give away officer's grade for free.  The alternative was to lose members who don't want to be "just airmen."

2.  Numbers matter, especially when lobbying Congress.  See #1 above.

3.  If we really want a quality officer corps like the real military, we won't just screen at the door, we'll screen at every promotion.  And some good guys might not get promoted.   Because not every Captain makes a good Major, regardless how good a Captain they were.  You're promoted on potential for higher grade, not performance at current grade.  Of course, in a volunteer group, if you tell someone "you went to all the schools, but we don't think you have the potential for field grade service" odds are they're gonna quit.  So now you're out a decent captain.  See #1 and #2 above.

Real military folks don't quit over this after about the first 10 years because they want the pension.  CAP has no such carrot.

Bottom line - any true attempt at a quality officer corps will involve failing folks, not because they are criminal, but because they're just not "good enough."

Heck, we don't even like to fail folks who attend our schools, because "it's a waste to fail them after they've put in the time and effort to attend."  But without passing and failing, there is little quality control.

That's gonna cause all kinds of heartburn, and affect our numbers.  Which, rightly or wrongly, carry a lot of weight.

Now if you want to push quality up, you start by keeping people out & demanding lots to be in. You'd be amazed how that improves recruiting & retention rather than not.

I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with prior-service folks. There's a few problems in any group of people, what can I say. It's unfortuante though. I'd expect if they were correctly oriented to CAP & understood how things are going to work that they'll get with the program or move on. That sort of behavior would not be tolerated in the military, and they really do know better.

As to leading volunteers... we were just talking abou tthis a couple days ago in another thread. You really can't jsut order people to do things in the military. I mean you can, but you're going to get the very worst possible performance from them by doing that. You really have to motivate & inspire them to want to do the job. Some of that is culture & some is you as a leader, none of it is the paycheck they get regardless of how good or bad they do.

In CAP you have to do exactly the same thing. You have to build a culture, motivate/inspire followership, and we also discussed how you can explain to people the consequences (real & maybe a little stretched bluff too) that are out there for not doing what they're told. The truth s you volunteer to join & you can volunteer to quit, everything in between is governed by regs. Part of this too is about people not getting good training when they come in. They don't have military discipline. You can build it to a degree, but it'd be a lot easier with an entry program to take care of that. That's what you'll see Kach talking about on his TAC wknds for OTS idea.

Quote from: DNall on January 08, 2007, 04:26:12 PM
Now if you want to push quality up, you start by keeping people out & demanding lots to be in. You'd be amazed how that improves recruiting & retention rather than not.

I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with prior-service folks. There's a few problems in any group of people, what can I say. It's unfortuante though. I'd expect if they were correctly oriented to CAP & understood how things are going to work that they'll get with the program or move on. That sort of behavior would not be tolerated in the military, and they really do know better.

As to leading volunteers... we were just talking abou tthis a couple days ago in another thread. You really can't jsut order people to do things in the military. I mean you can, but you're going to get the very worst possible performance from them by doing that. You really have to motivate & inspire them to want to do the job. Some of that is culture & some is you as a leader, none of it is the paycheck they get regardless of how good or bad they do.

In CAP you have to do exactly the same thing. You have to build a culture, motivate/inspire followership, and we also discussed how you can explain to people the consequences (real & maybe a little stretched bluff too) that are out there for not doing what they're told. The truth s you volunteer to join & you can volunteer to quit, everything in between is governed by regs. Part of this too is about people not getting good training when they come in. They don't have military discipline. You can build it to a degree, but it'd be a lot easier with an entry program to take care of that. That's what you'll see Kach talking about on his TAC wknds for OTS idea.

I'm still not with you.  Patton would have made a horrible CAP leader- no one would have put up with his posturing.  And we've got some "Den mother" types in CAP who accomplish incredible things with volunteers, but would get cut to ribbons in a military unit.

Yes, there's overlap, but it just ain't the same thing.  If you've got 20 odd years learning one style of leadership, that's the way you're gonna do things in the future. We simply don't have the time and resources to do that level of reprogramming. And...there are many sources of good adult leaders.  If you find me a guy with 10 years of leadership in another volunteer group, or even certain commercial businesses.  He may be IMMENSELY more valuable out of the gate than a 10 year USAF Captain.  And yet we give him nothing on his collar.

Yes we need good leaders.  And yes, we can get some out of the military.  But we can get them elsewhere as well, AND we can get some not-so good ones out of the military.

I'd say everyone start at the bottom and if you're good, we'll figure it out quickly and promote you.  And if that's too much for your ego to handle.....you'll probably cause us problems later anyways.

Dif leadership styles work with dif audiences, that's true, but you can also create a culture that defines & controls your audience so they behave as though they are reservists, even if they aren't. From your military experince I'm sure you know you pick up much more from the people around you & the standards informally enforced on you than by having it taught in a class or read from a book. Just control the environment & control the situation. You can make people who you want them to be. It's not even hard.

We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

Perhaps rather than keeping people out, we need to focus on getting the "round peg in the round hole"....back when I was a cadet officer the term was 'homogeneous assignment'!

Seriously.....if someone truly wants to volunteer, there ought to be an appropriate role.....for instance, suppose we do make the push for a middle school separate program -- this would seem like a very logical place that would actually NEED the nurturing approach of "Den mother types"!

Now, does everyone need to have a military uniform?
Does everyone need a military rank?

Quite possibly not.

Does everyone need to understand chain of command and commit themselves to working within it?

Absolutely, unless we want chaos.

Maybe we can have a pool of people who are "instructors" as someone described them (perhaps their title could be "Senior Member", since apparently it's become available recently!)...folks who wear a polo shirt or something like that, and serve SOLELY in support roles.

The instructor thing sounds perfectly reasonable, but I really worry it'd be highly divisive between the military types & non-military types. We already get that way too often cause our training isn't up to spec. If you're going to do it then I thnk you have to look to ACA & RAF who do exactly that kind of thing, but have a very intensive selection & training process for their instructor category, and even high for their military graded officers.

I understand what you are saying within the scope of idea.  And it might work.

However.

We are not ACA or RAF...we are CAP...we are not even the military.

I know you all hate when people say that...but it is true.

WHY do we need to have higher standars?

So what that RLO's think our officers a joke.  I don't have to lead them and they don't have to follow me...so why should I care?

It is important to remember that we are a service organization.  We serve both the USAF, other federal agencies, our states and our community. (and this is all in our federal charter).

We should demand excellence in our people for the jobs they choose to take on.  We don't have to impress anyone else.  We don't have to prove that we can take on an O-6's job on the battle staff.  We have to prove that we can do the job we said we can do.

I am the best Scanner that I can be.  I am the best CP officer I can be. And that should be all the CAP asks me to be.

Raising the entry standards is not the way to go.  Improving the in house training is where we need to focus our energies.

I get sick and tired that people harp how our officers are not the same standard of USAF officers.  Well so what!  I am not a USAF officer and I don't want to be.  I don't have the time it would take to make me at that level and it would be a waste of time to try...because I will never be called on to work at that level.

And that is the bottom line.

If our jobs required us to be a the same level of USAF Officers....the USAF would give it to RLOs!  And that this the crux of the issue.  We are given the job the USAF does not feel like doing.  It is not because we do it better, it is not because we do it cheaper.  It is because it allows them to do other "more important" missions.

 :clap:

Quote from: DNall on January 09, 2007, 12:53:18 AM
We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 02:26:17 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 09, 2007, 12:53:18 AM
We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

We've had years of "corporate"  top down direction.

It has led us nowhere....does anyone else remember NASCAR???

Further, when the USAF has tried to pull the reins tighter to get us 'on board', various "corporate" types have invoked Congressional intervention to stop it....whether or not it was actually in our best interest.

Granted that we are not ACA etc, if these other organizations have something that works well, we should adopt it.

What I really find interesting is that Kach, Dnall & I are among those urging review and reform....yet we're being described as hyper-military.....whether we are or not, at least we are proposing concrete ideas.

I'd really like to hear what others think we should do, besides sit back and wait for someone else to solve our problems.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 09, 2007, 02:36:39 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on January 09, 2007, 02:26:17 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 09, 2007, 12:53:18 AM
We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

We've had years of "corporate"  top down direction.

It has led us nowhere....does anyone else remember NASCAR???

Further, when the USAF has tried to pull the reins tighter to get us 'on board', various "corporate" types have invoked Congressional intervention to stop it....whether or not it was actually in our best interest.

Granted that we are not ACA etc, if these other organizations have something that works well, we should adopt it.

What I really find interesting is that Kach, Dnall & I are among those urging review and reform....yet we're being described as hyper-military.....whether we are or not, at least we are proposing concrete ideas.

I'd really like to hear what others think we should do, besides sit back and wait for someone else to solve our problems.

I think we've got two kinds of problems

Internal - things keeping us from performing our existing missions as well as we could.

External - missions we're not doing that we think we should.

Everybody wants to focus on the External, because that's sexy.  We all think how cool it would be to be saluted by a USAF major, or to fly UAVs over Iraq, or carry guns and guard SAC bases.

Instead, no one wants to work in the less sexy, but vitally important area of "how can we improve the way we do business?"  You know, the stuff CAP actually controls.

I've seen this on fair number of forums over the years, and it always ends up the same way - we come across as somewhere between pretenders and dreamers, rather than folks dedicated to doing our missions better.  And none of it ever happens.

There's a TON of stuff we could do internally.  Practical stuff.  Stuff that matters.  Some of which has been discussed here - identifying inactive members.  Changing our PD to provide actual skills vs just "orientations.  Perhaps even demanding meeting attendance (what a thought).

All this requires is  the will to establish minimum standards, and accept the "dues drain" that will occur as ineffective members quit and ineffective units are dechartered.

It won't get us Officer's club cards or UCMJ authority.  It won't make us interchangeable with Real Air Force Officers.  But it will make us a better, more effective auxiliary.

Dragoon:  well said!

I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 09:24:38 AM
I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

You avoided my basic question - who exactly is planning on killing us, and why?

Rumors don't cut it. Facts do.j  Please lay 'em out

We will adopt to whatever ICS stuff gets put out.  It's not a big deal.

The "ELT missions will go away" drumbeat has been going on since 2000.  So far, it's kind of a Chicken Little thing - and this particular sky has been falling for some time.  We have to see if the current moratorium doesn't get slipped out a few years because all the new 406 satellites can't get up in time.  And...we have yet to see the problems that the explosion of Personal Locater Beacons cause.  We could end up with even more false alarm chasing then we have now!

Unless there's some one gunning for us (names please), Congress runs on inertia.  Changing things just takes effort and invites complaints from voters.  I don't see them taking action any time soon.

That said, I'm all for improving CAP's professionalism.  But not under the anonymous shadow of Doom and Gloom.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 03:00:15 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2007, 09:24:38 AM
I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

You avoided my basic question - who exactly is planning on killing us, and why?

Rumors don't cut it. Facts do.  Please lay 'em out

We will adopt to whatever ICS stuff gets put out.  It's not a big deal.

The "ELT missions will go away" drumbeat has been going on since 2000.  So far, it's kind of a Chicken Little thing - and this particular sky has been falling for some time.  We have to see if the current moratorium doesn't get slipped out a few years because all the new 406 satellites can't get up in time.  And...we have yet to see the problems that the explosion of Personal Locater Beacons cause.  We could end up with even more false alarm chasing then we have now!

Unless there's some one gunning for us (names please), Congress runs on inertia.  Changing things just takes effort and invites complaints from voters.  I don't see them taking action any time soon.

That said, I'm all for improving CAP's professionalism.  But not under the anonymous shadow of Doom and Gloom.

Yeah, even if Joe Schmoe graduated from high school, at 14 and so would be old enough to graduate from college at 18, he would not be able to do ROTC to geta commission. You must be 17 to enroll in ROTC or to enlist. Then ROTC is minimum 2 years. The Army currently allows ROTC commissions after 2 years at the Military Junior Colleges, so these 2LT's can be USAR 2LT's at 19 or 20. But these are few and far between.

Setting a standard of 21 makes sense because most officers in the military will not be less than 21/22 when they commission.

Quote from: gallagheria on February 07, 2007, 06:07:20 PM
Yeah, even if Joe Schmoe graduated from high school, at 14 and so would be old enough to graduate from college at 18, he would not be able to do ROTC to get commission. You must be 17 to enroll in ROTC or to enlist. Then ROTC is minimum 2 years. The Army currently allows ROTC commissions after 2 years at the Military Junior Colleges, so these 2LT's can be USAR 2LT's at 19 or 20. But these are few and far between.

Setting a standard of 21 makes sense because most officers in the military will not be less than 21/22 when they commission.

Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 08, 2007, 12:39:43 AM
Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

In the Army you can get a commision with 90 credit hours of college. IIRC, you must have at least an associates. However, you must have a bachelors degree in order to make captain. No bachelors, no captain.

An Alaska Army guard recruiter tried to get me to sign up, as an infantry officer. There are guys that can do that, and they're welcome to it. Not my cup of tea.

Come to think of it, they may still be offering those commisions. If you want to be a butterbar in the Guard, give them a call. And don't forget your snivel gear.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 08, 2007, 12:39:43 AM
Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

well, the Army has always allowed this. There are five Military Junior Colleges that this can be done at. Then, as noted above, most National Guard units will allow you to do the same. But under normal circumstances, you must get your bachelors before you can go active.

Here is an excerpt i got from one of the sites:

QuotePrerequisite: Three to four years of JROTC or Army Basic Training or the Leader's Training Course.

After commissioning, the 2LT has up to 36 months to complete their bachelor's degree. They must also be an active participant in a National Guard or Reserve unit while completing their bachelor's degree. Contracted ROTC cadets are NON-deployable until after they have earned their bachelor's degree AND have completed their BOLC III course.

Once they have their bachelor's degree, they may elect to go on Active Duty or stay in the National Guard/Reserves. This will be based on what type of contract they signed, the individuals' wishes and the needs of the Army.

I am totally against the Army's early Commissioning Program.  These Officers that come out of the program are NON-DEPLOYABLE.  They are no use for at least TWO years while they are completing their Bachelor degree requirements.  Throw in the fact that they have to attend their Officer BASIC Course which could add on an additional 6 months of uselessness.  They are only taking up space in a reserve slot. I consider non-branch qualified and non-deployable Officers to be a waste of a Commission.  If the Army needs more Officers, then perhaps start offering bonuses like they do for enlisted folks!!

I was a TAC Officer at Fort Knox years ago for the Leaders Training Course (two year entry point into ROTC) and the caliber and quality of those kids that came to my training Company from the military junior colleges were crap.  I hope that they are more mature today as officers than they were as cadets.

On another note, I am also against the National Guard granting a Commission to a person and then allowing that person to finish up degree requirements.  Plus throw in that the National Guard Officer may wait up to 2 years to attend their Branch Officer Course.  All the same time they may become eligible for promotion to First Lieutenant.  What CRAP is that? 

If you don't have a bachelors degree, and there are no open training slots for a new officer, why make that person an officer.  Standards and Requirements are something that should be met!

You are correct about application and practicality in general. However, it is not about commissioning per se, but about recruiting. It is a tool to get guys in the service, similar to SMP cadets who are in the National Guard and occupy slots and are paid as E-5's but are also non-deployable because they are contracted cadets technically enlisted in the USAR Control Group (ROTC).

Before this argument goes to far, I was just curious, beause I had never heard of such a setup. I was in the AFROTC, but then I was medical'd out. If there was a way for me to go back as an AF officer - be it AD Res or ANG- I'd do it in a heart beat. (If I can get around the medical) But Ive no intention of joining the Army.

I am resurecting this thread because we have two threads that touch on this issue.

Okay...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that CAP rank and leadership system is disfunctional because we have a system where "rank" has no meaning and we are not training our officers before they assume higher rank.

Here is my proposal.

Flight Officer Ranks.

Everyone is a flight officer.  FO-1 through FO-5. 

Your rank is based on the level of PD you have completed.

The National CC is a Maj Gen
Vice National is Brig Gen.
Region CCs are Brig Gen
Rgional Vice CC are Col
Wing CCs are Col
Vice Wing CCs are Lt Col
Group CCs are Lt Col
Group Vice CC are Majors
Squadron CCs are Majors
Deputy CCs are Capts.

There are no Lts or NCOs.

We put hard and fast rules about completeing the appropriat level of PD to hold a particular job.

All National Staffers must be Level V
All Regional Staffers must be Level IV
All Wing staffers must be Level III
All Squadron staffers must be Level II

Commanders must have the next higher level of PD than their staff with in one year of appointment or they loose their jobs.

Rank is temporary.....that is when you no longer hold the rank you revert back to being a FO.

Certain ES ratings are awarded certain ranks.
All IC 1 are Col
All IC 2&3 are Lt Cols
Section Cheifs are Majors
Branch Directors are Capt.

They wear the rank so long as the hold the rating AND ARE APPROVED BY THE WING COMMANDER.

This simple system will eliminate 90% of all the heart ache we have with rank.  We can focus on getting the right training for the right level of leadership and stop grousing about rank.

Prior military and advanced degree promotions will be eliminated as an option but we can allow some of the current advanced promotion criteria to allow for a waiver of TIG requirments (but not training/specialty tract completion).

So what say you all?

Who's willing to give up their oak leaves for FO rank and making CAP rank meaningful?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 28, 2008, 11:12:49 PM
Certain ES ratings are awarded certain ranks.
All IC 1 are Col
All IC 2&3 are Lt Cols
Section Cheifs are Majors
Branch Directors are Capt.

In practice, it's really not that far off. . . . .

QuoteSo what say you all?

Who's willing to give up their oak leaves for FO rank and making CAP rank meaningful?

Okay.

Given how much everyone B&Ms about changing uniform items now, I don't think temporary ranks would prove very popular.  There would also be issues with ID cards. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 28, 2008, 11:23:21 PM
Given how much everyone B&Ms about changing uniform items now, I don't think temporary ranks would prove very popular.  There would also be issues with ID cards. 

I think lordmonar is in a roundabout way steering towards the CGAUX model: they seem to have the uniform/ID thing worked out.

Given that assumption, all members would be "Auxiliarists," which goes against the grain of our current organizational culture.

The Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

The changing uniform issues is fixed by staying in your position...keeping your ES rating current.

Again....not really an issue for those who want or don't want to keep their rank.

So for the joy of getting promoted I get to spend more money on buying and sewing on more uniform parts that I may only get to wear for a while?  As long as we're doing sew on rank this isn't going to be a good way to go.  I know that in at least one period in my CAP career I would have had to change my ranks at least 3 times in one year. 

Temporary ranks also will take away all incentive for doing any CAP professional development.  So long as I can get promoted based entirely on the "who you know" system, there is no need for it. 

QuoteThe Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

the old one would probably be expired. 

The reason the CG Aux system seems to mostly work is that they are not using rank titles with the positions for the most part and they get to keep wearing the insignia of the highest office they have held.  That and the fact that they have much, much, less emphasis on military customs and courtesies.

However, as long as we are using standard military rank systems, people are going to be very reluctant to give up a rank that they have earned.  Do you really think a Wing King is going to take off those eagles for any reason?

By the way, ignore my last comment in the previous post about PD. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2008, 12:13:12 AM
So for the joy of getting promoted I get to spend more money on buying and sewing on more uniform parts that I may only get to wear for a while?  As long as we're doing sew on rank this isn't going to be a good way to go.  I know that in at least one period in my CAP career I would have had to change my ranks at least 3 times in one year. 

Temporary ranks also will take away all incentive for doing any CAP professional development.  So long as I can get promoted based entirely on the "who you know" system, there is no need for it. 

If cost is your major draw back, then I think we are on to something.

As far as rank being an incentive for advancing in the CAP PD system....I think you got it backwards.  We don't do PD to promote we do PD to provide our leaders to do the job.  As I argued in the "mandatory PD" thread if you are fat dumb and happy being a FO-2 at the squadron level....well good on you.

If you want to step up to be a commander then you got to do the required PD and press  on.

I thought one of your arguments was that rank does not mean anything.

We can't fix that with out either requiring Lt Cols to take jobs equal to their ranks or we make peoples rank match the job that they are doing.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2008, 12:22:18 AM

QuoteThe Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

the old one would probably be expired.

Then raise the fee to 20$ to cover the cost of a new ID when you step down.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2008, 12:22:18 AMThe reason the CG Aux system seems to mostly work is that they are not using rank titles with the positions for the most part and they get to keep wearing the insignia of the highest office they have held.  That and the fact that they have much, much, less emphasis on military customs and courtesies.

However, as long as we are using standard military rank systems, people are going to be very reluctant to give up a rank that they have earned.  Do you really think a Wing King is going to take off those eagles for any reason?

Sure...it's the rules.  If he wants to keep his eagles he needs to get his IC1 and maintain his currency.  Where's the problem with that?

So if we were adopt this system....personal progression in the PD system will be denoted by the FO ranks and real leadership positions will be denoted by standard ranks.  It will greatly reduce the number of squadron commanders with Lt Cols "under them".  It will not confuse any of our customers at a mission base because the ICs and bosses will all have higher rank then most of the worker bees....sure you may have an IC1 pulling OSC or PSC (or less) duty and only an IC3 in charge...but that would be easy to explain to an outsider and again it will greatly reduce the number of Lt Cols just doing MSA or MP duties.

Sorry about my pervious post....I alrady responded before I read your request to ignore it......consider it ingored ;D

Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2008, 01:00:04 AM
As far as rank being an incentive for advancing in the CAP PD system....I think you got it backwards.  We don't do PD to promote we do PD to provide our leaders to do the job.  As I argued in the "mandatory PD" thread if you are fat dumb and happy being a FO-2 at the squadron level....well good on you.

Here's the fundamental part of my argument:

Just put rank completely out of your mind for a minute... our current PD program is about worthless in terms of meeting the internal ldrshp/mgmt development needs for org. This is in turn responsible for the majority of our problems in one form or another, IMO.

The second part of that is... if we made a PD program that legitimately me those needs, a whole ton of people would not be capable of completing it. I hate to be cold about this, but the brains it takes to be a general are not the same as it takes to be a SrA, and the difference is not just circumstance or experience.

Which brings me to another point. You don't use your resources training everyone to be an upper-level leader, then have just a few. That ends up with too many chiefs & not enough Indians. You also don't train no one for leadership, then act frustrated when very few people are capable of effectively doing the job - not to mention also being ethical & professional in their execution of it. The compromise we currently run is CAP is actually the worst of both sides of that equation.

There's also one more element, merit. Checklisting PD requirements doesn't make you anything. Performing above average in comparison to your peers does mean something. That has to be considered as the prime factor in promotions, balanced with PD, and with checks against political BS.


The most logical solution is a dual track system, much like you'll see not only in the military, but civilian govt as well as private business (SOS has a good section on this topic).

Based on qualifications, capabilities, aptitude, and personal desire, more most people are going to be workers. There's nothing wrong with that. They should not looked down on. They are the backbone of the org. Without them, nothing happens. As they progress through their career we do need to provide a PD program to help them improve themselves in that tactical/operational level. In the military this is your enlisted force.

Now that group is exceptionally, important, but it isn't strategic. You need another layer of people that focus on organizational leadership & mgmt. They aren't better than the previous group, just different in key ways that make them capable of doing a different kind of work, which we also can't function without. That's a very complex situation which requires investment of a lot more resources over years to develop each ldr/mgr to function at increasing levels of responsibility. This is your officer corps. That's not to say there aren't people that are initially better suited to the enlisted side, but after some time become qualified & capable of completing the training & meeting the performance standards of an officer. There are such people, and their applications should be on top of the list to accept to such training.

Finally, promotions within both sides have to be managed by selection boards. You can provide checks & balances against stupid stuff by making them anonymous as much as possible. Obviously there's some good example out there on how to do all this.

I'm not arguing that we do things more like the military so we can be more like the military. I'm arguing that they have a very proven system over generations that's just flat got it right. That this same system is present in a slightly altered more cold-hearted form in the corporate world. We're sitting around wondering why things don't work that well in CAP, when we're doing something different than every other successful mgmt system out there.

When you lay grade back over the top of what I just said, it all kind of falls into place & just makes sense.

Why FO1-5? And why no NCOs or LTs? Why purposefully diverge further from the foundation on which we're built?

Also, is a FO5 really interchangeable with a Col? Is it just the position & some crap on their collar that makes them different? Or do you think there might just be a little more to it then that?

QuoteI thought one of your arguments was that rank does not mean anything.

I've never said that.  I'm one of the people who say CAP rank is just that -- CAP rank and that its silly to get all bent out of shape over how it does or does not relate to similar military ranks in terms of training to get it. 

Now, I'm not all opposed to making rank based on position.  But, I recognize the fact that so long as we have separate systems for administration and operations (ES) then no single system will make "sense".  In other words you will still end up with situations where someone will be in charge of someone else with a higher rank during a mission. 

My proposal, made some time ago, is to have rank based on position in the ES structure since that is where we have the most interaction with other agencies and do our actual work. 

Even though I've got a proposal on the table, I recognize that it, and all the other rank proposals out there, will make very little, if any, true difference to the organization and that our current system, while not entirely logical, gets the job done. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2008, 03:25:21 AMI'm not all opposed to making rank based on position.  But, I recognize the fact that so long as we have separate systems for administration and operations (ES) then no single system will make "sense".  In other words you will still end up with situations where someone will be in charge of someone else with a higher rank during a mission. 

That's so backwards. Rank isn't tied to positions like that, and shouldn't be. It's not about looking right, lines of authority, or whatever else. It's about there is a personal skill level required for each higher position level, those skill levels can be determined in part by grade. That only works is 2Lt has a level of education, trng, testing, etc; if 1Lt has a higher skill level plus experience; Capt has it pretty well figured out & ready for first command. If only the top 40% (example) of Capts can make Major; top 30% of majs can make LtCol, etc. If it's just sitting thru some classes/serving some time then that's completely meaningless. If it's i need an experienced person above average to this theoretical percentage level, then I can define that with grade, IF the background grade system makes sense. Otherwise it's a charade.

The latest proposal in this thread from lordmonar did specifically tie rank to position.  See the page before this one.

I understand. The reason lots of people think rank should be tied to positions is cause it looks right & maintains consistent lines of authority. That part is true, but the actual reason they're tied together is a matter of the qualifications/capabilities necessary to execute the position. The rest is bonus. If you come up with a system that addresses the bonus while ignoring the primary purpose then it's kind of missing hte point isn't it?

Quote from: DNall on April 29, 2008, 10:07:26 PM
I understand. The reason lots of people think rank should be tied to positions is cause it looks right & maintains consistent lines of authority. That part is true, but the actual reason they're tied together is a matter of the qualifications/capabilities necessary to execute the position. The rest is bonus. If you come up with a system that addresses the bonus while ignoring the primary purpose then it's kind of missing hte point isn't it?

Lots of frosting, but no cake.......

^ exactly.

That's why I'm talking about you need a system of initial qualifications, developmental training, and merit based progression to determine officer grade. Cause that then says something significant about qualifications to be a unit commander or branch director or whatever the case may be. That's why grade exists.

Merit based progression?

I though we had that....

Do this training, go to these conferences, obtain and maintain an appropriate rating in a specialty track, do so much time in a staff position, X number of months TIG.....and you MERIT a promotion.

What more do we need?

Promotion boards?   We do that now don't we?

Rank quotas?  So we can slow boat some hard charger because there are too many Lt Col Old Farts in another squadron?

Compete for rank?   I'd like to see the proposal for that one.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2008, 11:11:06 PM
Merit based progression?

I though we had that....

Do this training, go to these conferences, obtain and maintain an appropriate rating in a specialty track, do so much time in a staff position, X number of months TIG.....and you MERIT a promotion.

That's checklisting some requirements & serving your time to promotions that are virtually automatic.

QuoteWhat more do we need?

Promotion boards?   We do that now don't we?

Rank quotas?  So we can slow boat some hard charger because there are too many Lt Col Old Farts in another squadron?

Compete for rank?   I'd like to see the proposal for that one.

Yes, promotion board.

No we don't legitimately do that now. Very few units actually put anyone thru a board. In the cases they do, it would only be held up for past problems, like poor performance. Basically, as long as you keep plugging along you get promoted. Even in the few cases where this happens now, the standards are extremely inconsistent with no command guidance.

No, I'm not talking about quotas, which would in some cases hold people up. Yes I very much am talking about competing for grade. Merit of individual performance versus peers, and in comparison to overall standards for the next higher grade, taken in view of a whole person concept that looks at experience, education, background, participation, achievements, etc.

You know.... the stuff that tells me this guy can actually perform in any generalist Major position I put him in, versus that guy that's a decent Capt but isn't ready to make the jump & may never be.

If I do promotions that way, then when I say IC is a LtCol or above slot, then it's actually meaningful.

Sigh.

Heavy sigh.

Heavy sigh.

Someone, please tell me we're not doing this one again.

While I have absolutely no problem with theoretical discussions, this one seems to be a re-hash of one (or more) we've already had.  Any proposal to change/re-do CAP grades is -- in my opinion -- both a solution in search of a problem and never going to happen anyway.

The theoretical exercise is quite interesting, don't get me wrong.  But I hope you're not seriously proposing this as a real change as opposed to said theoretical exercise.  CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.  Any CAP field grade officer who has a problem being led by a company grade officer who is also a Squadron CC or an IC needs an attitude adjustment.  Rank is not, and should not be, attached to position in CAP.

My two cents.  Flame away, if you feel the need.

Jack

Yes it's theoretical, to an extent. No one is proposing we step in & completely remake all of CAP in one fail swoop. There is merit though to considering incremental change along the path being discussed.... And just so you know, this is that old conversation revived to clarify on that past discussion. If you don't want to participate, no one is making you read it.

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 29, 2008, 11:59:53 PM
CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.

Which is absolutely in every way meaningless. That program is just slightly better than completely worthless in terms of what we actually need as an organization for internal leader/manager development.

To the extent that we need to recognize progression thru what I'll very VERY loosely call a professional development program, that can & should be done thru ribbons. Grade (to the whole rest of humanity in all of history, military or otherwise) is a symbol of deserved authority entrusted by the public.

QuoteAny CAP field grade officer who has a problem being led by a company grade officer who is also a Squadron CC or an IC needs an attitude adjustment.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the discipline CAP members show toward those appointed over them. It has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

These problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.

Quote from: DNall on April 30, 2008, 12:14:24 AM

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 29, 2008, 11:59:53 PM
CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.

Which is absolutely in every way meaningless. That program is just slightly better than completely worthless in terms of what we actually need as an organization for internal leader/manager development.

To the extent that we need to recognize progression thru what I'll very VERY loosely call a professional development program, that can & should be done thru ribbons. Grade (to the whole rest of humanity in all of history, military or otherwise) is a symbol of deserved authority entrusted by the public.

I couldn't and wouldn't argue with you in that regard.  The problem is, your point (and it's a good one!) is being made about 67 years too late.  The Army Air Forces took CAP into their organization and gave us uniform, grade, etc.  Things change over time, and what may have originally been what you describe has slowly evolved into the system we have now.  And I just don't see The Powers That Be (and that includes the Air Force, which has final say on CAP's grade structure from top to bottom) being at all willing to entertain ideas to change that.

As far as signifying progression through what you laughably call "PD" through ribbons, there seems to be a similarly strong thread to do away with many of those, and perhaps represent the levels of PD with various devices on a single ribbon.  Even if professional development is something of a joke, it takes work and time, and should be reflected in some measure.  (You can already tell I like having both grade and ribbons -- one doesn't always wear one's ribbons.)

Quote
It has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

To accomplish that, we need a top-to-bottom recreation of our PD program and the development of a leader/manager program.  And we would have to have the willingness to accept having potentially necessary positions unmanned if qualified members can't be found.  But, I don't see what rank has to do with that.  Our current system, which quite often has lower-ranking people in command slots over higher-ranking people, would work the same with a better PD system, wouldn't it?

Quote
These problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.

But will recreating our rank structure solve that factor?  The insignia displayed on a member's collar really isn't that big of a deal; the ability of the member to do the job needed at the level of proficiency required is the issue. 

Or did I misunderstand something?

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 30, 2008, 01:38:52 AM
I couldn't and wouldn't argue with you in that regard.  The problem is, your point (and it's a good one!) is being made about 67 years too late.  The Army Air Forces took CAP into their organization and gave us uniform, grade, etc.  Things change over time, and what may have originally been what you describe has slowly evolved into the system we have now.  And I just don't see The Powers That Be (and that includes the Air Force, which has final say on CAP's grade structure from top to bottom) being at all willing to entertain ideas to change that.

A lot of us have learned about the business cycle at some point in our lives. That's the natural wavy progression of markets (or anything else). It's true that things are different now then they have been, but that hasn't been a nice gently slopping change from one end to the other. It's been way up & down. The very beginning was not the furthest to the other end of the spectrum we've been. That'd be more in the 50s. The current form though, here in the corporate era, is probably the furthest down we've come. I'm arguing that it's time for another swing back the other way in that natural cycle to re-attain the balance we need for the org to reach its potential.

QuoteAs far as signifying progression through what you laughably call "PD" through ribbons, there seems to be a similarly strong thread to do away with many of those, and perhaps represent the levels of PD with various devices on a single ribbon.  Even if professional development is something of a joke, it takes work and time, and should be reflected in some measure.  (You can already tell I like having both grade and ribbons -- one doesn't always wear one's ribbons.)

PD, when done right, is meaningful & should be designated by ribbons. I do agree it can be knocked down to one ribbon with clasps though. It's not saving the world, it's just training to be better at your job. We don't need to be pretentious about it. WE don't need 4 ribbons & we don't need that information on field utility uniforms. Service dress is where you strap your resume to your chest. The rest of the time you show thru your actions - it's generally better for people to underestimate you & then over-perform their expectations.

Quote

QuoteIt has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

To accomplish that, we need a top-to-bottom recreation of our PD program and the development of a leader/manager program.  And we would have to have the willingness to accept having potentially necessary positions unmanned if qualified members can't be found.

PD = Exactly.

As far as necessary positions going unmanned....Right now we have units with 10-30 people doing work that you'd expect from a real military unit with 100, including at least one full-time administrator if not a staff. That's nuts. We should consolidate our unit structure. I don't mean reduce the units, but reduce the administration performed at those units. This is back to another thread where I talk about most local unit need to be Flights with 3-5 sharing a single staff. We can train up and maintain an adequate staff to man 20-30% of our current "necessary positions." And we can actually accomplish all the work we're supposed to out of a Sq with that kind of teamwork.

Quote

QuoteThese problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.

But will recreating our rank structure solve that factor?  The insignia displayed on a member's collar really isn't that big of a deal; the ability of the member to do the job needed at the level of proficiency required is the issue. 

Or did I misunderstand something?

Qualifications, experience, proven record, education, competence, ethics, leadership, etc all go into an individual quality rating if you will. Everyone else in the world entrusts levels of authority according to where people rank in that scale by comparison to both progressive standards & peers. That's what rank its in the military, any fire/police/etc agency, or the corporate world. We display that in uniform with some insignia for rapid recognition of both core ability level & associated authority. That then is the basis for deciding who gets what leadership positions within the org. That's true right now, and it should be true, but only if progression in the program is meaningful. Right now the difference between a LtCol & a Lt is not really meaningful at all in those terms.


As far as theory or willingness of the powers that be, etc... I'm for first & foremost massive revision of the PD program as described. The tie in with rank follows of its own accord. As will selection to leadership positions. Well down the road those ties can be better formalized.

We actually agree much more than we disagree, Dennis.  I have no issue at all with making rank meaningful.  My thoughts simply run counter to the idea of not having a grade unless you're doing a particular job in a squadron/group/wing/region.  This "flight officer 1-5" nonsense (no offense intended, LordMonar) really rankles me, because a) we are -- nominally -- the auxiliary of the Air Force and should use their grade structure, and they don't have such things; and b) it seems that some espouse tying actual officer grade to ES qualifications.  Well, everyone who joins CAP doesn't join for ES work.  Don't leave them out of the grade structure.

Sorry to intrude; resume your discussions!  Thanks for letting me play.

Jack

You know you can play all you want.

You could change his idea to say: 18-21 are Amn-SrA, 21+ are SSgt to CMSgt along the current PD program. Officer grade reserved for positions (both ES & unit).

That's the CGAux model, and it's okay, but I disagree with it. As I said, position comes from rank BECAUSE rank comes from a career track of developed leader/mgr competencies by comparison to others.

You can no more assign a member up from membership to hold an officer position than you can make an A1C a MSgt in the AF & give him lordmonars's job. They simply are not interchangeable. The rank insignia isn't built with zippers on it so anyone can do anything as long as it looks right. It's the quality of the people in the positions that matters.

Two problems with what DNall is saying....in relation to CAP.

One....is that it the system that got us to where we are now.  People hold positions that are grossly out of sync with the grade they are wearing.  Right, wrong, indifferent.  So when you have a 1st Lt (who should only be a 2nd Lt) commanding a squadron with eight Lt Cols, five majors, and a boat load of Capts we end up with the complain that "grade means nothing (other than denoting progression in the PD system).

Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarisation training and a competant staff.

In theory we should be wearing the rank before we assume the particular position.  I agree with that 100%.....in a perfect world.  But how many squadrons have 100 people all learning and doing their jobs where you have a pool of highly qualified officers to do the job?  Usually squadrons have maybe 40 to work with.  And the real factor is whether people stand up and take the jobs.

Here is another suggestion.

Leave the system we have now more or less intact....but still tie grade in with positions.   That is you can't ever put on a particular rank with out holding one of the critical jobs appropriate for that rank.

That is you have to hold a squadron level staff postion to be 1st Lt...A squadron deputy/or group staffer to be Capt, Squadron CC to be Major...etc.

No matter what level PD you have.  Still stop the advanced promotions for everyone (including prior military officers).  That way we know each and every Capt you meet has been at least a Group Staffer or squadron deputy commander.  Every Lt Col has been a national staffer or wing vice.

But we still end up with what we do with them once they go back to the squadron.....and how that makes the grade hierarchy all screwed up.

lordmonar is has identified some of our major differences with USAF.

And his suggestion is a good one, and in fact the easiest to implement - simply add a requirement for promotion that you must serve in a position requiring that grade.  It's perhaps the easiest one to implement. 

But, as he points out, it still allows for massive grade inversion, because unlike USAF, CAP officers move up AND down the heirarchy throughout their carreers.

A USAF Major can't say "this job is too hard, I want to keep my oak leaves but just to an Lt's job."  He's only got two choices

1.  Keep doing Major's work.

2.  Retire/Resign.

This ain't gonna work for CAP, for obvious reasons.


Since we can't tie a person's rank to a position we COULD tie a position to a person's rank - pin it on when you're in the job and take it off when you leave.  This would actually be closer to USAF then we are now - the only guys wearing Majors grade would be folks doing Major's work.

Of course, folks don't like getting demoted.  And, as some have pointed out, just handing out rank for position without any connection to training seems a little "off."

So, here's a compromise - tie grade to position AND PD.

Your max grade in a position is a combination of your level of PD and the job you're in.

A level III guy in a Lt Col job?  He only gets Major.  He gets promoted when he makes it to level IV.

A level IV guy in a Captain's job?  He wears captain.  If he moved to a Lt Col job, he'd get his promotion to 05.


These promotions could be temporary (which would motivate folks to keep doing the hard jobs) or permanent (to assuage egos).

But either way, we'd be rewarding both job performance and training, which seems like a good idea.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarization training and a competant staff.

How is this remotely different than the reserve component?

What happens in CAP is you give the Sq CC job to that LT cause he's dumb enough willing to take it, while the 8 LtCols, etc are not. That says absolutely nothing about LT's ability to perform the job. It is very much the SrA thrown into the MSgt position that they just can't do. As a result, the job gets done for crap, but they don't get fired. That screws programs & retention real fast, not to mention massively limiting our ability to achieve our potential. That is only compounded as you move above Sq level. You apply that situation across the majority of leader/mngr positions in the org... That's exactly where CAP is right now, and why I'm saying this is the cause of the majority of our problems.

IF you just tie grade to position, w/o first tying grade to competence, then you're freely assigning SrA to MSgt positions & vice versa as if all warm bodies are interchangeable, cause the grade is the position & says nothing about the qualifications for it.

QuoteIn theory we should be wearing the rank before we assume the particular position.  I agree with that 100%.....in a perfect world.  But how many squadrons have 100 people all learning and doing their jobs where you have a pool of highly qualified officers to do the job?  Usually squadrons have maybe 40 to work with.  And the real factor is whether people stand up and take the jobs.

This is where I'm saying we're requiring the kind of administration & operations out of a 10-40 person all part-time volunteer unit as is required out of a paid reserve component unit of 100 people with at least one full-time NCO. That's craziness.

This is again where I talk about consolidating unit administration, management, leadership, etc into mini-Gps of 3-5 units. Makes more sense if you call the local units flights & consolidated admin/staff units the Sq, cause that's the echelon level of work they're doing.

Does that make sense? It consolidates from maybe 9 to 20 officer positions down to maybe 4 to 9. And you're filling them now from 100-150 or so people.

Quote from: DNall on April 30, 2008, 08:04:46 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarization training and a competant staff.

How is this remotely different than the reserve component?

What happens in CAP is you give the Sq CC job to that LT cause he's dumb enough willing to take it, while the 8 LtCols, etc are not. That says absolutely nothing about LT's ability to perform the job.

It is possible that maybe, just maybe,  if the Lt Col's couldn't keep their grade without filling  Lt Col slots, then they wouldn't just sit in the back and let the LT be the commander.  One or more of them might be interested in doing the job in order to keep their grade.

In other words, perhaps with incentives we can keep the trained, talented guys working hard.  After all, if I can get saluted and called sir all day without actually DOING anything......why bother?

Sounds cynical, but it mimics the real world.  If you want someone to work hard you have to "pay" them.   You don't get a CEO for a mail room worker's salary.   In CAP, the most prestigious "pay" we can give out is USAF grade.  It gets you a title, and various priviledges over those of lesser grade.

Why the heck should we "pay" someone to be a Lt Col who isn't willing to do a Lt Col's job?

(and by the way, that's exactly the position I'm in right now.  Level V 0-5, former Wing Vice, now hanging out in a squadron doing 1st Lt's work.  There is zero reason for me to wear an oak leaf.  And I'd have no problem with a system that said "if you wanna wear it, you gotta do the job.")

Dragoon, I could go for your proposal linking PD, grade, and position in a sort of delayed fashion.  However, I would jump off the bandwagon at the point where you get demoted if you leave the position.  I do think it would be worthwhile to the organization to grant such recognition to folks who have BTDT.  But, as a minor concession I could go so far as to say that you would have to have performed satisfactorily in the position for a given period of time in order to permanently retain the rank (sort of like we do with wing commanders, though I think a longer period would be warranted -- 2 years?  3 years?).

Slightly off topic but related, if you were to institute something like this there would need to be a restructuring of the organization as a whole, not just the grades.

For example, you are the wing logistics officer of a wing that only has 500 members and we say that wing staff gets to be Lt Cols.

Move over a wing and they have 4000 members and 5 times the squadrons, that person also gets to be a Lt Col.

A sq cc that has barely enough members to remain a squadron gets to be a Capt.

The group commander for this group (only a group due to geograhical concerns) gets to be a Lt Col and his group comprises of 150 members.

A sq cc that has 200 members gets to be a captain.  This squadron commander, IMO has more responsibility than the group commander above, but isn't recognized for it.

See my point?

Quote from: Dragoon on April 30, 2008, 07:56:49 PM
lordmonar is has identified some of our major differences with USAF.

And his suggestion is a good one, and in fact the easiest to implement - simply add a requirement for promotion that you must serve in a position requiring that grade.  It's perhaps the easiest one to implement. 

But, as he points out, it still allows for massive grade inversion, because unlike USAF, CAP officers move up AND down the hierarchy throughout their careers.

A USAF Major can't say "this job is too hard, I want to keep my oak leaves but just to an Lt's job."  He's only got two choices

1.  Keep doing Major's work.

2.  Retire/Resign.

This ain't gonna work for CAP, for obvious reasons.


Since we can't tie a person's rank to a position we COULD tie a position to a person's rank - pin it on when you're in the job and take it off when you leave.  This would actually be closer to USAF then we are now - the only guys wearing Majors grade would be folks doing Major's work.

Of course, folks don't like getting demoted.  And, as some have pointed out, just handing out rank for position without any connection to training seems a little "off."

So, here's a compromise - tie grade to position AND PD.

Your max grade in a position is a combination of your level of PD and the job you're in.

A level III guy in a Lt Col job?  He only gets Major.  He gets promoted when he makes it to level IV.

A level IV guy in a Captain's job?  He wears captain.  If he moved to a Lt Col job, he'd get his promotion to 05.


These promotions could be temporary (which would motivate folks to keep doing the hard jobs) or permanent (to assuage egos).

But either way, we'd be rewarding both job performance and training, which seems like a good idea.

Dragoon has hit exactly what I was proposing in the first place.

You tie rank to position AND require the appropriate PD level of training.  Because we often have to put someone in the position (say like a new squadron or a group/wing that has an unexpected personnel change) so you give the new guy a time frame to complete the required training.....you could also hold the actual promotion until he get the right PD level.

We use the FO ranks to allow the non-command staffer to play urinary olypmics.....if we want to get away from the FO ranks....USAF NCO ranks could be used.

Amn=Level I
A1C=Technician rating
SRA=Level II
SSgt=Level III
TSgt=Level IIV
MSgt=Level V

Yeah it's possible if grade were linked to position that it would incentivize taking positions, but that doesn't have anything to do with the talent level. Right now, lordmonar is right in that the Lt could be potentially more talented as a leader than any of the LtCols.

I don't give a living crap about grade, or it's association with position. Particularly any need for it to look right or the grade to carry any authority that the position doesn't. What I care about is the qualification of the people in those positions. Right now there is zero link between the two.

What I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.

In ANY other situation where rank is used, that ^ right there is what defines what rank a person is. In other words, the qualification is the determiner of rank, and so rank relates to position.

I understand you saying "if you wanna wear it you gotta do the job." I'm okay with that, but it's WAY down the priority list. What I'm MUCH more concerned with is no one is capable of adequately doing the job because we don't provide any legitimate training, and no reward for good leaders versus limitations for people that can't do the job.

Jimmeydeano,

Wing staffers would not be Lt Cols...they would all be atleast FO-3s.  Only commanders/vices/deputys would hold "rank".  The Wing PDO officer would have to be at least a FO-3 and his regional counterpart would have to be FO-4.

Quote from: DNall on April 30, 2008, 11:32:35 PM
Yeah it's possible if grade were linked to position that it would incentivize taking positions, but that doesn't have anything to do with the talent level. Right now, lordmonar is right in that the Lt could be potentially more talented as a leader than any of the LtCols.

I don't give a living crap about grade, or it's association with position. Particularly any need for it to look right or the grade to carry any authority that the position doesn't. What I care about is the qualification of the people in those positions. Right now there is zero link between the two.

What I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.

In ANY other situation where rank is used, that ^ right there is what defines what rank a person is. In other words, the qualification is the determiner of rank, and so rank relates to position.

I understand you saying "if you wanna wear it you gotta do the job." I'm okay with that, but it's WAY down the priority list. What I'm MUCH more concerned with is no one is capable of adequately doing the job because we don't provide any legitimate training, and no reward for good leaders versus limitations for people that can't do the job.

I understand and agree with you 100%...but that is not the purpose of this particular thread.  I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are putting the round peg in the correct shaped hole.

Requiring the right leadership skill for a particular job is very easy to legislate....but we have trouble seeing the reality because the "right person" for the job just does not stand up and take a swing at it.

So you go with who ever wants it.....

One way to fix that would be to take away the rank of those back room Lt Cols and Majors.   If they are so in love with their grade insignia maybe they would make an effort to keep them and do the job.

QuoteWhat I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.

Can you think of another national organization that really manages volunteers that way?  I understand that this is the norm for "real life", but I really don't know how well it would work in a volunteer outfit.  I know that your standard position is quality not quantity, but I really don't think many people are going to be interested in a CAP operated in that fashion and at some point we do have to maintain a minimum number of members to have any viability at all.  Maybe there is an example of this, but I can't think of one.  

River,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm.

Would members want to be part of something like that? Well yeah I think they absolutely would. Some of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers. So, I think it'd initially cause some people to leave, as any change at all would, but shortly thereafter would cause a strong spike in recruiting & retention numbers with much more success in our operations/programs.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 11:38:17 PM
I understand and agree with you 100%...but that is not the purpose of this particular thread.  I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are putting the round peg in the correct shaped hole.

Requiring the right leadership skill for a particular job is very easy to legislate....but we have trouble seeing the reality because the "right person" for the job just does not stand up and take a swing at it.

So you go with who ever wants it.....

One way to fix that would be to take away the rank of those back room Lt Cols and Majors.   If they are so in love with their grade insignia maybe they would make an effort to keep them and do the job.

Is it easy to legislate? I don't think it is w/o some other set of clear dividing lines on who falls into what competence level. That's what grade is really all about in the real world.

I also don't think motivation to hold positions is the issue. I don't think there are enough people qualified to the needed standards for each echelon to staff out the organization, not even with some reasonable consolidation & admin reduction.

I got little issue with taking away grade from a person that downgrades position. I'm willing to go with that, BUT I want to fill the position ONLY from people that have at least a particular PD level required for the positions - mind you this is assuming a massively overhauled PD program that actually produces leader/mgrs of the necessary quality, and that not everyone can get through. As long as that is true, I'm willing to compromise within the bounds of your system.

However, I really dislike using FO as a grade. It's MUCH more appropriate to use the alternative I mentioned above... 18-21 = Amn to SrA, 21+ = SSgt to CMSgt linked to five level PD system.

I'm not in love with that solution. I really don't think the majority of people in society are capable of achieving officer or SNCO standards (as adapted to CAP - meaning minus PT & combat related skills) regardless of education & training. I really value a entry level officer program (OTS) to seperate those two groups & become the gatekeeper to leadership positions, particularly above Sq level.

I know you're saying they're two seperate subjects, and they are, but I think they're ultimately linked right at the heart of things. I don't think doing what you're saying with rank alone will accomplish anything, nor does fixing the PD program as I'm saying either. I think the two things have to happen in concert for this to work. And if it does work, I really think that revolutionizes CAP.

QuoteRiver,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm

That may be the result of what you are proposing, but is there any other national volunteer organization doing it based on the method you are proposing? 

QuoteSome of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers.

The essence of what you are proposing is further limiting CAP leadership positions to a very small, select group of people.  That has the strong possibility of making the current situation even worse.  As it stands now there is no clear route to becoming a squadron or group commander other than through becoming buddy-buddy with the person next highest up the chain of command.  No matter how bad your current commander really is there is nothing that can be done about it, and you just might have them in that same position for 10-20 years (it happens). 

And you are actually proposing that CAP members be even more directly involved in the success and advancement of other members.  Some CAP members will have to be faced with telling a good volunteer they're not worthy of promotion.  People don't like doing that in their paying jobs, and this would make them get involved with that in their volunteer life.  Few will want to deal with the hassles and broken friendships that are very likely to develop.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 01, 2008, 02:20:49 AM

QuoteRiver,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm

That may be the result of what you are proposing, but is there any other national volunteer organization doing it based on the method you are proposing?

Most non-profits/volunteer based orgs are different from CAP in the extreme.

The the field level, tends to consist of either: a) minimally trained folks off the street (CERT, Red cross, etc); or, b) better trained folks in local teams (local SaR teams, volunteer FDs, etc. There are exceptions like DMAT & the like, but they basically fall into this structure as well. The key here is the "volunteer" membership isn't the leadership. They do the work & that's it. In order to rise above the field level to organizational mgmt they need to seek employment from the governing agency, which is going to be based on very specific education, experience, etc requirements, and will involve progressive levels of leader/manager training.

The organization of the governing structure is the key difference. Most non-profit/volunteer based orgs are governed by an extremely strong central governing body. Virtually no authority exists locally or regionally. The popular modern trend is the dominant executive director system. That's the paid full-time staff govern the org & make policy. They are usually hired from outside & have no field or member experience within the org. The board of directors (NEC/NB) become a rubber stamp for the most part, and focus on kind of vague strategic planning to give the paid staff a general direction to operate in.

With such a system you are: a) NOT developing people from within to fill key org leader roles; and, b) with a hire/fire from outside system, you seek out whatever skill you temporarily need on the open market & employ it till no longer needed then throw it away.

A lot of corporations do that as well, but then there are also those that value bringing people up from the inside thru executive development programs. Those are not popular in non-profits because of the cost. You're taking a worker off the line & he's still not ready for management for a long time yet. It's more efficient to keep that person on the line & hire a ready made manager off the street, or even to hire a management trainee off the street rather than have to fill two positions.

CAP is wholly different. We're a great big org that requires some rather serious operational training & a whole lot of leader positions to be filled. There's not a lot of other instances where that's true (incl CGAUx, as they have a lot of direct involvement & oversight by CG).

The system I'm talking about is obviously closer to how the military does things. I kind of dismiss active duty on these kinds of things cause that really is apples to oranges, but reserve components are a pretty good example. I know people like to talk about how they get paid, but that's really not true on the officer side. You do get a little, but honestly you spend a lot more unpaid time than any CAP officer & have to spend a whole lot of that money as part of your job. Most SDFs also follow a similar system. I'm not saying we need to copy either, but both are good to look at.

Quote

QuoteSome of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers.

The essence of what you are proposing is further limiting CAP leadership positions to a very small, select group of people.  That has the strong possibility of making the current situation even worse.  As it stands now there is no clear route to becoming a squadron or group commander other than through becoming buddy-buddy with the person next highest up the chain of command.  No matter how bad your current commander really is there is nothing that can be done about it, and you just might have them in that same position for 10-20 years (it happens). 

And you are actually proposing that CAP members be even more directly involved in the success and advancement of other members.  Some CAP members will have to be faced with telling a good volunteer they're not worthy of promotion.  People don't like doing that in their paying jobs, and this would make them get involved with that in their volunteer life.  Few will want to deal with the hassles and broken friendships that are very likely to develop.

Absolutely it reduces the number of positions to a much more reasonable & manageable size. However, it takes selection authority away from that next higher commander too, for the most part. It says the position can only be filled by a qualified candidate, and lays out what the qualifications are. That means PD progression on one hand, but also that they've been comparatively/competitively successful thru their career in order to promote. So you're looking at actually qualified people. At that point certainly the next echelon commander has input, but it's a board that does the selection, and the echelon above that which has to sign off on it.

A big part of the concept is to do away with that kind of buddy system that elevates unqualified people & holds back quality folks. It's really not doing anything TOO overly complicated, just formalizing the process a little with checks & balances, and of course quality training & enforcing minimum qualification standards.

So a Wing commander won't be able to chose his squadron commanders or group commanders?  That will be the day.  And I'm not saying that just due to being a cynic.  So long as the Wing Commander is the only corporate officer in the wing I just don't think it would be practical for them to not have final say unless we change out a whole lot of other things about CAP. 

I think any version of what's been said above is changing a whole lot of things about CAP. I think that's kind of the point is getting away from some things that have really held us back.

As far as the appointment process. It's really pretty simple. Sq CC requires X qual level (PD/grade), that means Y people are qual'd, each will automatically be considered but are asked to submit a resume & letter on why they should or should not be selected. Gp CC is free to make recommendations to a board, but the board makes the decision, and Wg CC must sign off on it. Obviously if the Gp CC absolutely doesn't want someone they have plenty ability to stop that from happening, but it makes it a lot harder for the buddy system to be the controlling factor in who gets moved up when.

If there aren't qual'd candidates, then it's opened up to other area units, if still no then lesser qual'd candidates can be considered on the condition that they must complete to the req qual levels in a year or lose the job.

You know, that sounds exactly like how our Wing Commanders are appointed now, and I'm not so sure that is really all that great an example.