CAP Talk

One cause that I have long championed is getting rid of all special appointments, mission-related skills promotions, and professional appointments and promotions.  All of these ways of getting promoted in CAP faster than you would otherwise through following the standard CAP program are presumably in place to provide incentives for those who meet the criteria to join CAP.  To my knowledge this incentive has never been shown to be an effective recruiting or retention tool. 

I've never seen any official explanation for why we have NCO ranks, we most certainly don't have a "program" for them so I can only assume that we have them as an incentive to appeal to former NCOs who are feel that becoming a CAP officer would be demeaning.  Obviously it doesn't work as there are way, way more former NCOs who participate in the standard program than become CAP NCOs.  So, I lump the NCO grades in with the other special appointments as failed recruiting tools. 

So, basically I want to find out how much support is out there for making all CAP senior members follow the standard CAP senior member development program so that at least we know that all CAP Captains have learned the exact same things and have the exact same knowledge of CAP and its workings. 

As it stands now you could line up 10 CAP Captains all of whom could have obtained that grade in 10 different ways.  I just don't think that inspires any confidence in the system. 

Once we are all forced to follow the same system for promotions, we can then make some headway in improving the professionalism of the force.  As long as a significant percentage of our seniors are able to bypass the system there is no chance of large scale improvements. 

Reality being what it is, I would grandfather in everybody at their current grades.  I think we could put up with that given that with routine turnover most seniors would be fully within the new system in 5-10 years. 

Who is with me?

Where do I sign?

Fine with me.
I would go ahead and continue to give ex cadets and military credit for the equivalent courses that they "already completed"

I don't have a problem with equivalency for military courses. 

Why not ask the National Commander? :clap:

If you get a special assignment promotion to Captain, you still have to do all the levels too. You still need time in grade to Major. I don't see the big deal. Doctors drafted into the military don't start at 2d Lt.  Many people in the civilian world have earned positions equal to military Colonels. Why should they start at the bottom? The systems works fine as it is, don't be jealous of those more qualified than you.

PME credit is not the same as advanced grade, but what purpose does it serve?

CAP is unlike any other animal, and only looks like the military from the outside to people who have not been in either service.

The only reason the military gives advanced grade to professionals is to provide them a pay-grade or authority respective with
the job they will do in the service, and if they don't live up to their job or authority they lose it (or are separated).

Advanced grade serves zero purpose in CAP - there's no requirement or even expectation that someone given Captain for
being a CFI will ever instruct or even fly for CAP, and no ramifications when they don't.  Further, a successful field-grade officer in the
military will have little idea how to get things done in CAP, and waiving CAP professional development because of "equivalent" PME
doesn't help that, and won't provide the respective member with the knowledge he actually needs in CAP to get things done.

This is absolutely not the same thing as a Navy Lt. Commander transferring to the USAF and expecting to be a Major - at least in that
case both services provided a similar baseline training, and much of the shorthand would be the same.  And even in inter-service
transfers a lot of times people have to accept a demotion.

We need people who understand the "CAP Way", not who come in the door with expectations that their "1C-BTDT" means anything here.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 09:46:16 PM
Advanced grade serves zero purpose in CAP - there's no requirement or even expectation that someone given Captain for being a CFI will ever instruct or even fly for CAP, and no ramifications when they don't.

In my unit, our CFIs serve as check pilots. They don't get their advanced grade until after they start putting that CFI certificate to use for CAP.

Quote from: Thrashed on January 08, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
If you get a special assignment promotion to Captain, you still have to do all the levels too.

Only if they want to promote higher. 

Quote from: SarDragon on January 08, 2012, 09:54:51 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2012, 09:46:16 PM
Advanced grade serves zero purpose in CAP - there's no requirement or even expectation that someone given Captain for being a CFI will ever instruct or even fly for CAP, and no ramifications when they don't.

In my unit, our CFIs serve as check pilots. They don't get their advanced grade until after they start putting that CFI certificate to use for CAP.

That's rare in my area. Most CFI's walk in the door and hear someone say "omg! a CFI, you can be a captain next week as long as you get your paper work done".

I have even had former military come look (they were CFI's) and they heard "you can be captain next week" and laughed loudly and walked away never to return. I even emailed one and asked why he never returned. He said "I do not want to belong to an organization that hands out officer grade to anyone who walks into the door and is CFI." He went on to say "you will not even know if these people you give Captains and Majors too can lead someone out of a wet paper bag. I have done my research, and you do not hand cadets advanced grade because they are an eagle scout, or a red cross volunteer, why would it be different for those over 18?"

Do away with them. I have said this before, and will continue to support the idea.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 08, 2012, 10:09:05 PM

Quote from: Thrashed on January 08, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
If you get a special assignment promotion to Captain, you still have to do all the levels too.

Only if they want to promote higher.

Thus the very high number of "Senior" Captains.
(http://www.veteranspostnews.com/ImagesS-U/USAF/old-captain.jpg)

I'd like to remind everyone that in a previous poll, 80% (one of the most lop-sided CAP polls I've seen) of respondents said that the PD program was valuable to CAP (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13777.msg249115#msg249115 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13777.msg249115#msg249115)).  If that is the case it stands to reason that all senior members should be required to participate in it. 

I would agree with the exception of legal officers. CAP at all levels can't afford the expense, if we had to pay by the hour for legal advice.

You could add a process to demote them to the grade they had the PD for if they stop being legal officers and stay in CAP.

I would only keep the following special appointments:

Legal officers (lawyers at Capt, paralegals at 1st Lt)
Medical officers (Physicians, PA's and Nurse Practitioners at Capt, RN's at 1st Lt)
Chaplains (M.Div or equivalent at 1st Lt, D.Min or equivalent at Capt)

Everything else...start at square one.

Got to ask, why keep giving doctors and nurses advanced grade? What can they do in cap? Nothing more than a basic EMT, or first responder... or joe blow.... "hey, iv got a cell phone, ill call 911"

Legal officers now have to be appointed by wing, and should go directly to wing, do not pass go (if they want to serve as such).
There is no need to have legal officers serving at the squadron level, nor to confer them special appointment based only on their degrees
if they aren't appointed as such.

Medical officers are essentially barred from providing the services that would make them "special".

I see no advantage in bumping Chaplains - their services, especially, are almost the antithesis of what grade is about, and it offers them no advantage
when serving with other services.  The uniform and the clergy insignia should be enough.

Thank you for your opinions, but I disagree.  And so far the poll seems to be going 3-2 in favor of keeping the present system.  The posters are in favor of changing it - but it's the usual crowd, and I'd guess a lot of those voting in favor aren't going to post the same in fear of the usual CAP Talk flaming they'll get.

I don't actually care, so flame on.

I have not seen the problems you all talk about, in fact I have active duty guys that would walk on out if I said "I know you're an active duty Lt Col, but hey, this is CAP, YOU start as a second looie here."

You have a perceived problem that only the few are perceiving as a problem.  In all my face to face contacts around the wing, I've never heard anyone complain.  This is another CAP Talk chimera.     

Why not make the seniors do the cadet program?
Start at airman basic, and move up.

That would fix our nco program not doing anything
>:D >:D ;)

Is this an attempt to make rank mean something?

Since ranks has no real meaning......who cares?

Until we pin rank to actually responsibilities.....I dosen't matter if I give you an advanced rank to BGen or not.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Since ranks has no real meaning......who cares?

Exactly, glad we can agree on this - cause, that's a two-way street, right?

It's meaningless when someone is trying to shake their bars to get someone to do something, yet some how "important" when you say someone
can't have it.

Quote from: AirDX on January 08, 2012, 11:29:26 PM
Thank you for your opinions, but I disagree.  And so far the poll seems to be going 3-2 in favor of keeping the present system.  The posters are in favor of changing it - but it's the usual crowd, and I'd guess a lot of those voting in favor aren't going to post the same in fear of the usual CAP Talk flaming they'll get.

If you don't want to engage the conversation, so be it, but I don't see anyone flaming anyone.

Disagreement is not flaming.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Is this an attempt to make rank mean something?

Since ranks has no real meaning......who cares?

Until we pin rank to actually responsibilities.....I dosen't matter if I give you an advanced rank to BGen or not.

Well, not exactly.  However, rank certainly can't mean anything if there is no common denominator of shared knowledge and experience among those that wear it. 

I think it stands to reason that if our PD is worthwhile, which most think it is, then there is absolutely no apparent reason why it should ever be bypassed. 

Show me some research proving the benefits of all the ways around the PD system and maybe I'll change my mind as to whether or not the current exceptions actually do some good for CAP. 

QuoteAnd so far the poll seems to be going 3-2 in favor of keeping the present system.

Well, the poll is going against my suggestion for the most radical change possible and I'm shocked that its getting as much support as it is.  I wouldn't say that everyone is voting for the status quo.

Perhaps I should have structured the polls to present a wider range of alternatives, but I wanted to see the baseline.  I'm sure that we could get majority support for cutting back the current ways of bypassing the system at least partially from where it stands now. 

That's the problem with these polls - no baseline to judge from.

We have no way of knowing how many people favor the status quo because they have benefited from it, which is why disruptive change is always a problem.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 08, 2012, 11:52:16 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Is this an attempt to make rank mean something?

Since ranks has no real meaning......who cares?

Until we pin rank to actually responsibilities.....I dosen't matter if I give you an advanced rank to BGen or not.

Well, not exactly.  However, rank certainly can't mean anything if there is no common denominator of shared knowledge and experience among those that wear it. 

I think it stands to reason that if our PD is worthwhile, which most think it is, then there is absolutely no apparent reason why it should ever be bypassed. 

Show me some research proving the benefits of all the ways around the PD system and maybe I'll change my mind as to whether or not the current exceptions actually do some good for CAP.

Well now you got the Historian in me active.

RANK is an indicator of reletive postion with in a heirarchy.
The USAF does inf fact bypass its own PD system by awarding advanced grade based on a lot of factors.
Full doctors are brought in as Capts.
Nursers as 1st LT.
Some specialties are brought in even higher....I personally knew of a Surgeion brought in as an O-6!

Allowing people to "jump" the sytem does not deminish the system.....if used properly.

I thing as far as "showing research" the shoe is on the other foot.  Can you show that the current system is somehow failing or is less effective because we allow advanced promotions?

How about allowing the advanced rank but putting specific performance requirements to it?  For example, if we promote you to Captain you have to complete SLS and CLC within a year.  Or if we promote you to captain because you weren't in the room to turn down the squadron commander job, you now have three to six months to go through SLS, CLC and UCC.

I replied "no" because I think that they are useful. I would like to make changes, such as removing time in grade, but make them do the appropriate training such as sls, obc, etc. I would still give military equivalence.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2012, 01:59:16 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 08, 2012, 11:52:16 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Is this an attempt to make rank mean something?

Since ranks has no real meaning......who cares?

Until we pin rank to actually responsibilities.....I dosen't matter if I give you an advanced rank to BGen or not.

Well, not exactly.  However, rank certainly can't mean anything if there is no common denominator of shared knowledge and experience among those that wear it. 

I think it stands to reason that if our PD is worthwhile, which most think it is, then there is absolutely no apparent reason why it should ever be bypassed. 

Show me some research proving the benefits of all the ways around the PD system and maybe I'll change my mind as to whether or not the current exceptions actually do some good for CAP.

Well now you got the Historian in me active.

RANK is an indicator of reletive postion with in a heirarchy.
The USAF does inf fact bypass its own PD system by awarding advanced grade based on a lot of factors.
Full doctors are brought in as Capts.
Nursers as 1st LT.
Some specialties are brought in even higher....I personally knew of a Surgeion brought in as an O-6!

Allowing people to "jump" the sytem does not deminish the system.....if used properly.

I thing as far as "showing research" the shoe is on the other foot.  Can you show that the current system is somehow failing or is less effective because we allow advanced promotions?

Dr.'s and other professionals provide a necessary and important service commensurate with their advanced grade, and the all go to at least
salutin' school.  Not so in CAP.

Further, you can't prove a negative, but I think we all know things are broken.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 09, 2012, 02:12:21 AM
I replied "no" because I think that they are useful. I would like to make changes, such as removing time in grade, but make them do the appropriate training such as sls, obc, etc. I would still give military equivalence.

Remove TIG?

You could be a Lt. Col. in a year, 2 max.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:16:03 AMDr.'s and other professionals provide a necessary and important service commensurate with their advanced grade, and the all go to at least
salutin' school.  Not so in CAP.

Further, you can't prove a negative, but I think we all know things are broken.

And so is the the CAP system.
CFI and all those other special promotions are supposed to be providing a necessary important service.
I can't say "commensurate with grade" as that still has no meaning in CAP.
And we all go to "saluting school" in CAP....it is called Level I. 

Now....do you want to talk about putting some teeth into level I or making hard association with rank and responsibility.....well I'm all ears.
But unless we do that.....then this is just talking about making it harder for some people to get a rank that means nothing.

And as for my request for research....I did not ask to prove a negative.  I asked how is our program failing or less effective because of advanced promotions?

Sigh.

Yet another solution in desparate search of a problem.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 08, 2012, 09:05:24 PM
To my knowledge this incentive has never been shown to be an effective recruiting or retention tool.

So what is your experience in the recruiting and retention field?  Have you conducted any surveys or studys?  Have you looked at data in any sort of comprehensive way?  What criteria did you use in judging whether your strawman assertion is "effective" or not?

QuoteI've never seen any official explanation for why we have NCO ranks, we most certainly don't have a "program" for them so I can only assume that we have them as an incentive to appeal to former NCOs who are feel that becoming a CAP officer would be demeaning. 

Wow. 

You have to be in pretty good shape to make leaps of logic like that.

We have had NCO grades since CAP was founded.  I'm sorry if Gill Robb Wilson, Fiorello LaGuardia, and Gen Curry didn't brief you on why they thought it was a good idea to have CAP mirror our parent service, but it seems a little  . . . unimaginative . . . to blithely assume that any of the reasons are because of RM NCOs belief that CAP officer grade is somehow "demeaning."  Perhaps your own insecurities are clouding your assessment here?

Quote
Once we are all forced to follow the same system for promotions, we can then make some headway in improving the professionalism of the force.  As long as a significant percentage of our seniors are able to bypass the system there is no chance of large scale improvements.

Ineresting assertion.  It may even be true.  Do you have anything to support this beyond personal opinion?

QuoteWho is with me?

So far, it looks like less than a third.

^ We may allow NCO's from other services to wear equivalent USAF NCO stripes, but we most certainly do not have an NCO "program" in CAP,
and haven't for more than 20 years.

The common sense fact of the matter is that if CAP grade is "meaningless", then it hurts no one to have to wait to earn it, and if it has meaning,
then it only enhances the value to have everyone earn it in the same way.

QuoteThe USAF does inf fact bypass its own PD system by awarding advanced grade based on a lot of factors.

Of course they do and I'm sure that they have some very well documented reasons to back up the need to do so to meet their needs.  Just because it is something that works for their system doesn't automatically mean it makes sense for CAP.   Keep in mind that the advanced rank in the service has some extremely real valuable benefits in terms of pay and other perks that just aren't there for CAP.  If they gave a doctor Major rank but paid him like a private I doubt their system would work any better than ours does. 

Where is such research showing the actual proved benefits to CAP of this system?  Do we have CFIs beating down our doors to join CAP because they can get Capt. grade pretty quickly?  Are there surveys of CFIs who joined recently whose decision to sign up was in any way impacted by the advanced rank?

If there were only a few exceptions to the general rule of having CAP members follow the PD system, I could live with it.  But judging by the comparison of grade to PD level in my wing, about 25-50% of members are getting some sort of bump. 

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:32:10 AM
The common sense fact of the matter is that if CAP grade is "meaningless", then it hurts no one to have to wait to earn it, and if it has meaning,
then it only enhances the value to have everyone earn it in the same way.

Oh I like that argument.

We don't need evidence....we just think it's not going to hurt anyone.

NO....I don't buy it.  It sounds like the root problem is that rank has no meaning.....and less so when people can jump the tracks.

I say that rank has no meaning.....whether they jump the tracks or not.  Making it harder to recruit CFI's and other personnel to the CAP ranks.

So...like I said....want to talk about making rank meaningful....or putting some real value in the PD system.  I'll buy it. 

let's face it.

Getting Capt is simply getting your Level I......anyone have trouble with that?
Gettin your Tech rateing..........I mean I see a lot of seniors dropping out because they just can't get the material!
Doing your BOC(what ever they call ECI 13 now).........again anyone, anyone know of anybody who has failed that?
Doing SLS.......again....got a pulse, $20 and 8 hours....congradulations you have passed SLS!

All the rest is just time, work and effort!

Now don't get me wrong......I think our PD system is just great as far as that goes.  But let's not make it out to be more than it is.

The is entire thread is about making something that is not too difficult to do......(making rank) a little more difficult for a very small section of new members.

Like Ned said.....solution looking for a problem.

Quotea little more difficult for a very small section of new members.

Try 25-50%.  If it were only a very small section of new members I would agree with you.  If you know someone with access to commanders dashboard at your wing level I bet you will find something similar. 

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2012, 02:56:16 AMIt sounds like the root problem is that rank has no meaning.....and less so when people can jump the tracks.

I say that rank has no meaning.....whether they jump the tracks or not. 

We're in agreement, here.  So let's all stop pretending it means anything and move on - or better still, just dump it and move on.

We can still have PD without grade.  Give people decs and badges only for actual work objectively screened by someone else,
then the guys with the fanciest shirts will also be the ones doing the most real work and personal development.

We could still have courtesies - we just salute each other and call each other sir, you know, out of respect.

Commanders are commanders, same as today.

That eliminates the issues with the uniforms, confusion on military bases, and hard feelings when good people get stuck in political loops and can't advance for arbitrary reasons.

Problem solved.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 03:02:41 AM

Quotea little more difficult for a very small section of new members.

Try 25-50%.  If it were only a very small section of new members I would agree with you.  If you know someone with access to commanders dashboard at your wing level I bet you will find something similar.

Well, I should say that 25-50% of those in the grade of Capt. or above.  Without going through everyone's individual record its impossible to tell how many of the 1st Lts. have obtained a tech rating and all the 2nd Lts. have Level 1. 

But, in my Wing 47% of Captains have not completed the appropriate PD level, 23% of Majors have not, and 34% of Lt. Cols. have not.

Look at all of them together and 35% of those in Captain or above in my Wing have not completed the PD appropriate to their grade.  Seems like it is more than a very small section.   

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 02:33:02 AM

QuoteThe USAF does inf fact bypass its own PD system by awarding advanced grade based on a lot of factors.

Of course they do and I'm sure that they have some very well documented reasons to back up the need to do so to meet their needs.  Just because it is something that works for their system doesn't automatically mean it makes sense for CAP.   Keep in mind that the advanced rank in the service has some extremely real valuable benefits in terms of pay and other perks that just aren't there for CAP.  If they gave a doctor Major rank but paid him like a private I doubt their system would work any better than ours does. 

Where is such research showing the actual proved benefits to CAP of this system?  Do we have CFIs beating down our doors to join CAP because they can get Capt. grade pretty quickly?  Are there surveys of CFIs who joined recently whose decision to sign up was in any way impacted by the advanced rank?

If there were only a few exceptions to the general rule of having CAP members follow the PD system, I could live with it.  But judging by the comparison of grade to PD level in my wing, about 25-50% of members are getting some sort of bump.

I agree....just because the USAF does something....does not mean we should.

So....what is the issue:

Some people with advanced skills and training are offered advanced promotion IF they joing CAP and IF the promise to use those skills for the CAP.
Some people who hold advanced positions with CAP are offered advanced promotions because of prestige issues.
Some people who based on demonstrated ability are offered advanced promotions.
Some people who have held military rank are allowed advanced promotions.
Some people who have progress in the CAP cadet program are allowed advanced promotions.

Becuse these people are offered and they accept advanced promotions.......CAP because less effective.......____________.

Please fill in the blank.

You are proposing a change to the system because you THINK it does not live up to it's intended purpose...i.e. attracing highly skilled members.
You want to kill a potental tool to recruiting because it may not work....okay...but what harm does it bring?

In what way is your and my ability to perform our duties effected by allowing advanced promotion? 
Other than it not being "fair" I can't see a single reason for not allowing it.
By fair I mean "gee I had to work for my Capt's bars....and all you had to do was be a CFI/Accountant/completed your Spaatz/Serve in the military for 6 years/be a squadron commander for a year!".

You have still failed to demonstrate the "problem" other then pointing out you don't see the benifit for having advanced rank.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 03:02:41 AM

Quotea little more difficult for a very small section of new members.

Try 25-50%.  If it were only a very small section of new members I would agree with you.  If you know someone with access to commanders dashboard at your wing level I bet you will find something similar.

Okay......so there is your research...25-50% of our members are brought in on the advanced promotion system.

One would assume that we could see a drop between 25 and 50 percent if we did not offer these promoitons.

Again.....where is the "problem"?

Lord, you're pretending like you're new to CAP, seriously.  You're characterizing things they way they should be.

The "problem" is that most of the advanced and mission-skills appointments are made with no expectation of performance,
and in far too many of the cases these people stagnate at their level or worse.  Further, when random commanders
try to raise the bar and do things right, maybe even yanking grade of non-performers, the wailing and gnashing of teeth
is deafening.

It cheapens the situation for everyone involved, and if it's meaningless.  But worse, we give grade to the perceived
"special", while the regular shmoes doing the real work of the squadrons sit back and watch the new guys advance ahead of
them, before doing anything.  That's not a problem?  I can tell you that this has been indicated more than once
as a retention factor - you've got a commander in one unit holding everyone to an equal standard, and members can just
walk to the next unit and get bumped, then come back.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2012, 03:15:42 AMOne would assume that we could see a drop between 25 and 50 percent if we did not offer these promotions.

We both know that's not true - in a lot of cases it's just a CC waiving his mighty pen, or a member grade-trolling.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 03:09:07 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 03:02:41 AM

Quotea little more difficult for a very small section of new members.

Try 25-50%.  If it were only a very small section of new members I would agree with you.  If you know someone with access to commanders dashboard at your wing level I bet you will find something similar.

Well, I should say that 25-50% of those in the grade of Capt. or above.  Without going through everyone's individual record its impossible to tell how many of the 1st Lts. have obtained a tech rating and all the 2nd Lts. have Level 1. 

But, in my Wing 47% of Captains have not completed the appropriate PD level, 23% of Majors have not, and 34% of Lt. Cols. have not.

Look at all of them together and 35% of those in Captain or above in my Wing have not completed the PD appropriate to their grade.  Seems like it is more than a very small section.   

How many of them are retired/former military?

That is the elephant in the room.  You may be grousing about CFI's/lawyers/CPA/Doctors.....but those bad numbers are all about retired military officers! 

"You can't be a CAP Lt Col because you have not gone to SLC, CLC, RSC and done about a years worth of OJT.  What you spend four years at the USAF academy!  Sorry that does not mean anything to me!"

Do you want to see how many people would not joing because of that!  I already know of seveal SM's who refuse to wear CAP rank at all because they are not allowed to wear the Col birds!

Sorry General......you have to start as a SMWOG just like that 18 year old kid poping zits over there.....oh.....and here is Capt Spaatz....he just turned 21 and he's a Capt because he earned his Spaatz award!..........Hey.....where you going?  I still need to finger print you and and get your check!"

Like I said....make sure you understand the problem before you propose sollutions.

Here is the solution to the "problem"......require anyone with an advanced promotion 1 year per level to complete the required training or get demoted to an appropriate grade.

USAF retired Lt Col has 2 years to complet his Level 2, and additional year to complete his Level 3 and one more for his Level IV.
If he completes Level 2 in six months....he still has thre and half years to complete his Level IV.

Simple....easy.....and it fixes the "problem" of people with advanced promotions not having CAP PD levels to match.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 03:19:36 AM
Lord, you're pretending like you're new to CAP, seriously.  You're characterizing things they way they should be.

The "problem" is that most of the advanced and mission-skills appointments are made with no expectation of performance,
and in far too many of the cases these people stagnate at their level or worse.  Further, when random commanders
try to raise the bar and do things right, maybe even yanking grade of non-performers, the wailing and gnashing of teeth
is deafening.

It cheapens the situation for everyone involved, and if it's meaningless.  But worse, we give grade to the perceived
"special", while the regular shmoes doing the real work of the squadrons sit back and watch the new guys advance ahead of
them, before doing anything.  That's not a problem?  I can tell you that this has been indicated more than once
as a retention factor - you've got a commander in one unit holding everyone to an equal standard, and members can just
walk to the next unit and get bumped, then come back.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2012, 03:15:42 AMOne would assume that we could see a drop between 25 and 50 percent if we did not offer these promotions.

We both know that's not true - in a lot of cases it's just a CC waiving his mighty pen, or a member grade-trolling.

Okay....now we are begging to see the real problem.....YOU think you are being cheated because some CFI gets to be captain right off the back and you had to work for it.

That's life.....let me tell you a story about the time I was a TSgt teching this 2d Lt his job.....it was hilarious.
If you got a problem with commanders not being standard....then the fix is that you become a group/wing commander and fire the slobs.
Don't take tools away from people because other people misuse them.

Don't compare CAP to the military or any other monetarily compensated organization - they simply don't fit.  Neither the nonsense about a technician
teaching his manager about his job.  The manager's job isn't to turn the wrench, it's to manage the wrench turners.  Something the wrenchers always forget when telling the "I taught my boss his job story.".  Sometimes the wrenchers make more money than the managers, too.

The grousing isn't about people who come in and kick butt, it's about the majority who come in and perform exactly the same as everyone else or do less, yet still wear the same insignia.  A CFI who doesn't fly for CAP is of no more relative value than anyone else in the unit, yet when they are given their tracks ahead of others because they are CFI's, where's the "equality among volunteers?"  In those cases, people have a right to whine.

And this idea that former military automatically can magically save CAP just isn't true in the reality of CAP operations.  I certainly haven't seen it, because the plain fact is that your average former Major isn't going to come into CAP and assume a Group command day (or even year) one.  And all that training
and leadership ability is geared and focused on people who are legally bound to comply with orders.

To their credit, most of the best former military I have worked with in CAP have deferred accepting their commensurate grade exactly because they understand the situation and preferred to come by it organically, or at least do something before pinning on those oaks.

We've actually had some what of an issue, locally, with current and former military people joining up and then believing their grade and previous
experience means something, before acquiring even a basic understanding of CAP, then they stomp toes all over the place and can't understand
what "our" problem is.

When I look at a CAP Major with a L3 or L4 on his chest, I have an expectation of some level of knowledge, experience and ability.  When I see a
CAP major with only military ribbons, or just a level 1, all I know is he was in the military, and I have no expectations he won't be just as
"useful" as the 4 SMWOG's he joined up with.

He might know how to wear his hat, but he sure won't have a clue about cadet promotions or the WBP.

Patrick, can you really say that it is a GOOD thing for CAP overall and the perception of the abilities of CAP officers, both within the organization and by others, that up to half our officers in the higher grades do not have a common core of knowledge and training? 

Can you argue that it is good for CAP for there to be field grade officers in particular who have no CAP training beyond level 1? 

While the lack of such a common core certainly hasn't caused the apocalypse, there is no evidence that it helps. 

I think that whenever there is an exception to the general rule, that the bar for granting such an exception should be quite high with a very obvious demonstrated need.  As far as I can tell, these special appointments are based on someone's assumption that they may help recruit people into CAP and thats it. 

In the real military such exceptions to the normal officer development process are EXCEEDINGLY rare.  They certainly don't approach 25-50% of the officer corps.   

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:16:55 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 09, 2012, 02:12:21 AM
I replied "no" because I think that they are useful. I would like to make changes, such as removing time in grade, but make them do the appropriate training such as sls, obc, etc. I would still give military equivalence.

Remove TIG?

You could be a Lt. Col. in a year, 2 max.

Only if they have an appointment to Lt Col. If they have a cfi and can thus be a capt., they have to complete all pd achievements, just no TIG requirement.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 09, 2012, 04:14:28 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:16:55 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 09, 2012, 02:12:21 AM
I replied "no" because I think that they are useful. I would like to make changes, such as removing time in grade, but make them do the appropriate training such as sls, obc, etc. I would still give military equivalence.

Remove TIG?

You could be a Lt. Col. in a year, 2 max.

Only if they have an appointment to Lt Col. If they have a cfi and can thus be a capt., they have to complete all pd achievements, just no TIG requirement.

OK, that's reasonable, and doable.

Well, I was one of those instant captains (though it was 8 months or so after I joined that it kicked in).  It was a factor in getting me back in.  I have also completed all the PD, and I'm marking time awaiting Major.

But let's talk about all these other folks who enter at SM and climb the ranks the old fashioned way, these founts of CAP knowledge.

Uh, NOT.

I'll tell you what I run across often as not, is someone who's joined CAP, sat on their hands for 6 months, got 2LT.  After six months as assistant mopery officer, their friend Billy Bob signs them off as a technician, and with a year TIG, bam! 1LT.  They actually do the BOC, sleep through an SLS, sit on their hands for 18 more months, and BAM! Captain!  Since they don't really do anything for the squadron, they have lots of time to look for a CLC to sleep through, and Billy Bob will pencil whip a senior rating for them.  3 more years of paying dues and bam! they are now a major.

There are plenty of them out there, folks, you all know it, so don't pretend that Level III or IV means someone actually knows something.

Observing performance is the only way to tell if someone's grade and their capabilities match.  It's readily apparent, as you all know.

If the system's broke, it's broke on a lot of levels, not just advanced promotions. 

So for the guy that comes in as a nothing and sits on his hands until he is a Captain, where is his leadership?  It is up to his mentor or commander to make sure that he is actually doing something.  Where are those guys, sitting on their hands too?

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I've seen these types of officers.  Like the Maj or Lt Col (I forget which) who was teaching a uniform class at an SLS, took off his lightweight blue jacket and asked what was wrong with his uniform.  (It was an AF shortsleeve blue uniform BTW).  The answer that he thought was that he was wearing the wing patch on the wrong shoulder...  Then, his students pointed out that his ribbons were upside down (military on bottom, CAP on top), his belt was off the gig line, his shoes weren't shined, one of his epaulets was on backwards, etc. etc. etc.

The problem that I see is motivation.  Some of these officers are not motivated enough to go through all the "hassle" of going to all of those classes and doing that "other stuff."  As leaders, we should be the ones providing that motivation either by not making it sound so bad (I am guilty of that as well...) or by giving them an alternative to not getting it done (i.e. perhaps they should find somewhere else to spend their time).

Just my opinion.  YMMV.  FLAME ON!!!

Quote from: GoneAway on January 09, 2012, 07:22:55 AM
So for the guy that comes in as a nothing and sits on his hands until he is a Captain, where is his leadership?  It is up to his mentor or commander to make sure that he is actually doing something.  Where are those guys, sitting on their hands too?

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I've seen these types of officers.  Like the Maj or Lt Col (I forget which) who was teaching a uniform class at an SLS, took off his lightweight blue jacket and asked what was wrong with his uniform.  (It was an AF shortsleeve blue uniform BTW).  The answer that he thought was that he was wearing the wing patch on the wrong shoulder...  Then, his students pointed out that his ribbons were upside down (military on bottom, CAP on top), his belt was off the gig line, his shoes weren't shined, one of his epaulets was on backwards, etc. etc. etc.

The problem that I see is motivation.  Some of these officers are not motivated enough to go through all the "hassle" of going to all of those classes and doing that "other stuff."  As leaders, we should be the ones providing that motivation either by not making it sound so bad (I am guilty of that as well...) or by giving them an alternative to not getting it done (i.e. perhaps they should find somewhere else to spend their time).

Just my opinion.  YMMV.  FLAME ON!!!

No flames here - you are exactly right, where is the leadership?  The answer is... corrupt.

Personally, I'd make all promotions brevet pending meeting with a murder board.  For 2nd LT you've already had a summary discussion with a unit officer as part of Level I, that's good enough.  For 1st LT, meet with a three-member board from your squadron.

For Captain, meet a three-member board from another squadron.
Major, three-member board from group or wing if no group structure.
Lt Col, three-member board from wing.

Make sure the boards include a member rated in the same specialty track as high or higher as the individual coming up before the board.

Give people two years to meet a board or they revert to their permanent rank.  For geographically dispersed squadrons, members could meet their board on a conference call - though showing up in person in an appropriate uniform (blues or the white aviator combo) is preferred.

Just another idea!

Quote from: RiverAux on January 09, 2012, 03:59:48 AM
Patrick, can you really say that it is a GOOD thing for CAP overall and the perception of the abilities of CAP officers, both within the organization and by others, that up to half our officers in the higher grades do not have a common core of knowledge and training? 

Can you argue that it is good for CAP for there to be field grade officers in particular who have no CAP training beyond level 1? 

While the lack of such a common core certainly hasn't caused the apocalypse, there is no evidence that it helps. 

I think that whenever there is an exception to the general rule, that the bar for granting such an exception should be quite high with a very obvious demonstrated need.  As far as I can tell, these special appointments are based on someone's assumption that they may help recruit people into CAP and thats it. 

In the real military such exceptions to the normal officer development process are EXCEEDINGLY rare.  They certainly don't approach 25-50% of the officer corps.

I can argue....as we all have....CAP rank means nothing.
When SMWOG can be a unit commander.  When CAP captains are "over" CAP Lt Cols, Cols, BGen and MGens.
When position is NOT determined by grade.

I have argued that YES those who have been given adavanced grades should be required to "make up" the training in a resonable period of time.
I have argued that we should do away with the grade system as it stands and everyone should go to a Flight Officer grade system.

But unless you want to change the core problem with CAP grade.......anything else you do is just going to be white wash.  It is not going to fix the real problem.

You think that advanced grade does not help.....I disagree.
Former military personnel are more likely join then not.....because they can keep their old rank.
Personnel with advanced skills are more likely to join and use those skills if you give them something for it.

Either way....I don't see any down side....not really.  Because I don't care what rank you wear on your collar....I care about what you do and how you do it.

I think the special appointment stuff has gotten way out of hand and should only be limited to those special ones like doctors, lawyers and nurses...or former cadets. I'm not even in favor of AEOs coming in and becoming instant captains.

Giving rank away like CAP does, only sends the wrong message to those who come in at the bottom and are trying to progress.

And by the way, I'm in favor of a senior member NCO program....but I want something that means something.

Alright...so I'm confused.

On one hand our PD program is incredibly valuable.  It's a tremendous value to our membership.

On the other hand, the only way to make people use it is to force them to do so...

So, which is it?  Is it a value to members, who will take it to better themselves of their own volition?  Or is something that we need to mandate for all members because it adds no discernable value to them?

Quote from: JeffDG on January 09, 2012, 12:58:03 PM
On one hand our PD program is incredibly valuable.  It's a tremendous value to our membership.

On the other hand, the only way to make people use it is to force them to do so...

Well, we don't force people to do anything.  We don't force the guy eligible for a special appointment to take it, but if you are eligible, why wouldn't you take advantage of it?  We don't force the guys not eligible for special appointments to progress through the PD system either.  They can stay at SMWOG forever if they like.

And it is CAP itself which has set up this system that makes it possible for a significant percentage of our membership to bypass the PD system.  There is no evidence why this is good for CAP, so it seems that the default position should be that anyone who wants to move up in rank do it through the PD system that CAP has designed for itself.

Some here bring up very true problems with our current PD system and I'm all for improving it.  However, for such improvements to have an impact they need to apply to everybody. 

You either keep it as is or scrap it in its entirety.  When you start allowing exceptions we will find ourselves right back here in 3 years!

For the older (seasoned) members, some may remember when special appointments came into being in the modern form (1964).  CAP always gave medical proffesionals initial advancement, then came mechanics and the rest followed.  It historically was an incentive to recruit Doctors/ Nurses into CAP so they would provide healthcare to our Members.  Since the roles regarding medical, aviation mechanics etc have changed significantly in CAP since 1964, there really is no need any longer.

Quote from: flyboy1 on January 09, 2012, 12:32:15 PM
I think the special appointment stuff has gotten way out of hand and should only be limited to those special ones like doctors, lawyers and nurses...or former cadets.

Yea, NOT pilots or aircraft mechanics. What is this anyway...the Civil AIR patrol? Why reward someone who has an actual skill needed in the program?  ;)

What skill does an A&P bring (anymore?) CMX means no one is working on the airplanes anymore.

Teaching cadets their material:

"Aerospace Dimensions.  Award-winning series of six modules - Introduction to Flight, Aircraft Systems & Airports, Air Environment, Rockets, Space Environment, and Spacecraft; introduces  middle school students and Phase I & II cadets to the fundaments of aviation and space"

We have an A&P in our squadron who has been a great asset.

Fair enough, I suppose, though I don't think it would be unfair to surmise that the original reasoning behind advanced grade
for mechanics was their ability as educators.

     In the orginal post it was asked why we do not have enlisted grade in CAP. I remember when they were removed because a squadron commander promoted a 18 year old to master sergeant and at an encampment the 18 year ol went into the serior NCO's club. The NCO's were upset and complained to the chief of staff, and immediately after that the NCO grade were removed.
     I agree with most officer going through the PD program. Professional Appointments based on education with master degrees and above should stay as they are. Mission rated still appontments should be either be flight officers or bring back warrant office grades.

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 09, 2012, 04:49:16 PM
     In the orginal post it was asked why we do not have enlisted grade in CAP. I remember when they were removed because a squadron commander promoted a 18 year old to master sergeant and at an encampment the 18 year ol went into the serior NCO's club. The NCO's were upset and complained to the chief of staff, and immediately after that the NCO grade were removed.
     I agree with most officer going through the PD program. Professional Appointments based on education with master degrees and above should stay as they are. Mission rated still appontments should be either be flight officers or bring back warrant office grades.

That's one of those CAP urban legends that I just don't think is based in fact.  We have had CAP officers trolling for Salutes...would that be justification to eliminate officer grade?  If that were the case that would have been a major knee jerk reaction.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
What skill does an A&P bring (anymore?) CMX means no one is working on the airplanes anymore.

You do realize that planes sometimes break at places other than when they are in for routine maintenance, right?  Right handy to have someone who can legally look at the bird, make a quick adjustment, and allow us to continue.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 09, 2012, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
What skill does an A&P bring (anymore?) CMX means no one is working on the airplanes anymore.

You do realize that planes sometimes break at places other than when they are in for routine maintenance, right?  Right handy to have someone who can legally look at the bird, make a quick adjustment, and allow us to continue.

That'd be fine, except CAP does not allow members to work on CAP aircraft, unless they're in the employ of an aircraft shop and working as the shop employee, not a CAP volunteer. In part, I believe, due to the potential liability issues.

Quote from: SARDOC on January 09, 2012, 05:14:17 PM
That's one of those CAP urban legends that I just don't think is based in fact.  We have had CAP officers trolling for Salutes...would that be justification to eliminate officer grade?  If that were the case that would have been a major knee jerk reaction.

  That is fact I knew the squadron commander and the senior member involved.

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 10, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 10, 2012, 02:36:28 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 10, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

Strange, you would make this remark even though some other posts are further off topic then I?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 10, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

+1

I agree, that would make sense. 

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 10, 2012, 02:36:28 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 10, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

Actually, what is being discussed is doing away with all advanced promotions.

Quote from: Private Investigator on January 10, 2012, 04:58:10 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on January 10, 2012, 12:11:42 AM
I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

+1

I agree, that would make sense.

I concur with this also, including the elimination of referring to someone using the military rank structure.  I would instead refer to them based on the position they hold as a member of staff or command in the organization.  We are actually already doing this, as people here are given authority based on position rather than rank.  I have several Lt Cols in my squadron and before I took over it was commanded by a 1st Lt who made Capt. before changing out.  Further, in our organization a 19-yo cadet can run a ground team that has any level of senior members on it regardless of their rank.  I also believe we should adopt their method for the rank devices and place an "A" in the middle so as to clearly designate to those poor active duty Air Force types that we are not military officers.  Do this, then tie PD directly to positions that you can hold in the organization and you have the start of something.  Unfortunately, without enforcement all you will have is change.  As my father used to say "All change is not progress, and all progress is not forward."  I am sure he took that from somebody.  Just a note, I am not a member of the USCG (aux) and I have no dog in the hunt there. 

Yes, as stated earlier in these posts by some, I am one of those hated (sarcasm here) retired military officers that came in with advanced standing.  I came here in June of '10 and took command of a squadron 9 months later.  I have completed all PD training up through level III including TLC and UCC.  I did receive PME for RSC and NSC based on attendance at US Army Combined Logistics Officer Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff College.  Even with PMS, I still intend to attend the National AEO course.  At this time the only thing left for me to finish leveling up is to pick up my Senior and Master ratings in Cadet Programs and Aerospace.  Senior ratings will come in February.  I presently am rated as a Ground Team Leader and Mission Observer and participate in most but not all SAREXs and real world missions.  I have served on staff at Florida Encampment over the Christmas Holiday and just recently commanded the NH Wing NCO Academy over this past Christmas Holiday.   So why do I share this?  I am sharing this because you can't generalize about people.  In my short time here, the people that throw rank around most are the ones who never served in the military.  Is that everyone? No. Do I group them together as bad people for it? No.  Each individual deserves the opportunity to prove themselves and fix themselves along the way without being grouped into a category.

(Warning for all those who would take the following paragraph seriously DON'T)

For all the arguments about the various advance appointments, no one wants to touch the one for former cadets.  I can easily make a simple statement about that too.  No other officer producing cadet program in existence gives its graduates advanced rank based on how far they progressed in the cadet rank structure.  I personally see our Cadet program as the Civil Air Patrol Cadet program and for me it exists to create Civil Air Patrol Officers. So why would I give a graduate of that program advanced standing just for graduating?  No worries, I am not advocating a change here, because I personally can justify the arguments and have no issues with the present situation.  I am just throwing the concept out there so show how dangerous it is to group people into a category.  I will just ask one question.  Have you ever met a cadet that received advanced standing the probably should not have?  If you did the no cadet should get advanced standing.  Do you see how stupid the argument is?

While it is not germane to this discussion, I have to bring this up because it has been brought up here earlier.  Let me address the subject of UCMJ in the military.  Any officer or military leader that uses UCMJ or the threat of it to accomplish a mission is not a leader; they are a bully and have no place in this organization or the military.  I would not give the time of day to that type of so called leader.  In fact, Army commanders are rated adversely based on how many Article 15s they hand out. It is a reportable item on their QTB.  The more you hand out the less successful your command was.  The application of UCMJ is a direct measure of the command environment and unit moral.  Yes, sometimes it has to be done for blatant offenders, but it is not a tool to make people do things.   While some may, the good ones don't.  In 22-years in service I never uttered the words "do this or else".  So don't think that we go around waving the UCMJ stick around in order to get things done, because quite simply, you are wrong!  In 24-months in command I gave only one Article-15 and that was for a drug offense.  I personally talk to every military and former military member before they come into our organization.  Are there those that I will not invite in?  Absolutely!  Just like anybody, they have to be screened individually. 

I apologize for being long winded.

+1 on TCMajor

Having worked very closely with Major Harbison I give a great deal of weight to his arguments.

As a former cadet who benefited from advanced grade once I completed the CP and transitioned to Senior I do not feel any burning need for the system. It would be of much more benefit to acknowledge what training I received as a cadet and check of many more PD boxes than I did. Now I transitioned to senior over eight years ago now and many changes have been made in that time to address this very issue (PD equiv.). My personal feeling is that no matter why you are getting an advanced grade (former cadet, retired military, pilot, etc) you should have to go through a review process (read BOR) before you are allowed to pin on an advanced grade. You need to show your benefit to the organization.

I have found that grade means little in CAP. What seems to matter a great deal is your actual contributions to the organizations. Yet we seem to spend (waste) a large amount of time, energy, and effort on non-issues like this. Let's spend more time doing the jobs we volunteered to do, and less about what doo-hikky you get to put on your shoulder or chest. It's not like special appointments make any more money than I do.

I think the solution to this "problem" is not eliminating the system; but instead having a far more robust orientation and "basic" training phase for new seniors before they pin on advanced grade.

Actually the USCGAUX system has the same issues as CAP... Yes, the "rank" insignia is position based but I still have members of my flotilla who "out-rank" me as a Flotilla Vice Commander because they hold or held positions at the division or district level, and one case of a member who is an Academy Admissions Partner... so he holds advanced "rank" based on this alone.  Everybody is a member of a Flotilla (Squadron), even while holding positions at the Division (Group), District (Region) or National level.  A lot of times concurrently.

This also means you could have a brand new member pin on oak leaves or eagles because they took X position.

The Auxiliary also changed some position titles to better match the insignia.  Division Commanders used to be called Division Captains but wear silver oak leaves.... Can't count how many times I've heard people be called Commander or Captain within the Auxiliary.

Quote from: TCMajor on January 13, 2012, 01:07:29 PM
  I would instead refer to them based on the position they hold as a member of staff or command in the organization. 

I could really get into that.  I think the title "Governor" has kinda nice ring to it.   8)  As in, "Top of the morning, Guv-na."   :)

QuoteNo other officer producing cadet program in existence gives its graduates advanced rank based on how far they progressed in the cadet rank structure. 

It sounds like our backgrounds may have some similarities.  I am retired Army Guard Infantry officer.  But I need to gently non-concur with this statement.  When I completed ROTC, based on my class standing alone - my "progress in the cadet program", if you will" - I was offered an RA commission in lieu of the AR commission I had applied for.  As you know, an RA commission would have led to a substantial advantage in securing schools and assignments.  They offerred it again after OBC, but I declined both times.

Similarly, I know through the top graduates of each of the academies receive preference for graduate studies, advance training, assignments ,etc.  All of which will but them ahead of the graduates who finished lower in the order of merit.  Who made "less progress" in their cadet programs.

But more importantly, advanced cadets have skills and abilities that directly contribute to one of our Congressionally-mandated missions - our successful cadet program.  Just as CFIs and A & Ps can contribute directly to our aviation missions, so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2012, 05:30:45 PM...so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

I wish that were true, but the realities of attitude and "kids" precludes all but the top-top but being able to make the senior transition
and immediately work with cadets who were their recent peers.  In most cases you get "fire-and-brimstone" about fixing something
or other specific that they personally didn't like in the program coupled with the "unless you were a cadet you just can't understand"
nonsense and cause more trouble than good.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

Ned,
 
  And a pleasant good day to you too Guv-na..lol

   Yes, you are correct in the Regular Army stuff.  I did take the RA route myself, initially as a Warrant Officer and then as a Commissioned Officer.  As a Warrant there were definite advantages to being RA, although I am not sure they exist anymore.  My point with the cadet piece was to emphasize the need to evaluate the individual rather than the source of the appointment. I in no way shape or form wish to alter any of our methods of appointment.  I am one of the solid no votes.  I would love a chance to chat Army junk with you sometime.   While not in the Guard, as a Logie we had very strong ties with the Guard and I have the highest respect for their work.  My oldest son was just accepted into Norwich and he is looking at the Infantry Branch, possibly Ranger.  Doesn't want to be a loggie.  I have no idea why, maybe it is the fact that i missed his first five years of life due to deployments.  Anyway, there is a lot of road between here and there so we will see.

 
Kevin

Quote from: Eclipse on January 13, 2012, 05:44:31 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2012, 05:30:45 PM...so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

+1

Probably more like two to three years would work.  Get them out in the rest of the organization to see how the dark side functions.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 13, 2012, 05:44:31 PM
I wish that were true, but the realities of attitude and "kids" precludes all but the top-top but being able to make the senior transition
and immediately work with cadets who were their recent peers.  In most cases you get "fire-and-brimstone" about fixing something
or other specific that they personally didn't like in the program coupled with the "unless you were a cadet you just can't understand"
nonsense and cause more trouble than good.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

I certainly understand that that is the "convential wisdom," and has been for a long time.

But in most cases, I disagree.  While I don't want to understate the challenge, guiding and mentoring former cadets to work with younger cadets is a leadership issue for the seniors (DCC, etc) leading the former cadet, and most decidedly not official or unofficial CAP doctrine.

First, the number of 18-21 year old cadets is relatively small.  Less than 10%.  The average age for a cadet is under 15.  So as a practical matter, a 19-22 year old former cadet senior member has a pretty small "peer group" problem.  Nearly 95% of the cadet population will be significantly younger than a 20 year old former cadet.

Second, if the cadet loves and enjoys the CP, it defies good leadership to take them away from the mission critical job skills and put them into an assignment that they did not seek, are unprepared for, and do not enjoy.  That makes no more sense that telling a CFI who enjoys her work that she not only cannot fly, but is stuck as the Logistics Officer.  "And oh, by the way, we have a lot of Reports of Survey that are overdue, and Group is really angry at us.  Ready, go . . . "  And then we wonder why more former cadets do not remain as seniors.

We both know that all of our volunteers are individuals, and some individuals may need some time away from CP to grow and be ready to engage with out cadets.  That's why we have experienced leaders at the squadron - to treat former cadets as the highly skilled seniors that they are, and guide and mentor them while they apply their desparately needed skills to CP.

But having any sort of formal or informal "rule" that former cadets have to do something else for a period of years is most decidedly NOT doctrine, and is improper.

From the Chaplain side of the house ... the professional appointment is necessary due to our MOA with the USAF Chaplain Corps.  So the grade bestowed at appointment is based on the academic standing/ecclessiastical endorsement required.  CAP does offer a waiver for Chaplain applicants who do not have the 72 hour Master's Degree required for an USAF Chaplain applicant but has 5 years of documented Pastoral Experience.  There was a time when promotions were based on TIG -- in other words, breathing in and out.  Chaplains were not required to go past Level 1 for promotions.   That changed in 2007 when the SLS/CLC waiver was dropped and Chaplains are required to complete the SLS/CLC requirement.  That has been a significant change in that Chaplains are now required to know the CAP culture (novel idea, isn't it????).  As with any change, it will take awhile to see the impact ... but based on the experience of those chaplains who previously have completed all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Training program, there will be more chaplains with a better understanding of the way CAP operates.   In addition, the 221 Specialty Track has been updated.   Previously, it was simply reading the 221 and 221A pamphlets (which substituted for SLS/CLC).  That is no longer the practice.  The 221 is the Specialty Track guide, which in addition to the 221A/B/C pamphlets requires tasks to be completed that is commensurate with level of responsibilities assigned to the Chaplain.  As the former Chief of Chaplains stated, "The Chaplain Corps has joined CAP".

Quote from: Chappie on January 13, 2012, 06:39:18 PM
From the Chaplain side of the house ... the professional appointment is necessary due to our MOA with the USAF Chaplain Corps.  So the grade bestowed at appointment is based on the academic standing/ecclessiastical endorsement required.  CAP does offer a waiver for Chaplain applicants who do not have the 72 hour Master's Degree required for an USAF Chaplain applicant but has 5 years of documented Pastoral Experience.  There was a time when promotions were based on TIG -- in other words, breathing in and out.  Chaplains were not required to go past Level 1 for promotions.   That changed in 2007 when the SLS/CLC waiver was dropped and Chaplains are required to complete the SLS/CLC requirement.  That has been a significant change in that Chaplains are now required to know the CAP culture (novel idea, isn't it????).  As with any change, it will take awhile to see the impact ... but based on the experience of those chaplains who previously have completed all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Training program, there will be more chaplains with a better understanding of the way CAP operates.   In addition, the 221 Specialty Track has been updated.   Previously, it was simply reading the 221 and 221A pamphlets (which substituted for SLS/CLC).  That is no longer the practice.  The 221 is the Specialty Track guide, which in addition to the 221A/B/C pamphlets requires tasks to be completed that is commensurate with level of responsibilities assigned to the Chaplain.  As the former Chief of Chaplains stated, "The Chaplain Corps has joined CAP".

Anyone who can figure out the process for becoming a chaplain should be given advanced grade on that merit alone. We recently had a minister join my squadron, and we're currently stuck at "Get an ecclesiastical endorsement" when the list of endorsers is hundreds long and he has received no guidance on exactly which endorser he is supposed to use, or how to get an endorsement from them. I haven't talked to him in awhile though as he has been traveling so he may have worked something out in the interim.

Okay, we'e had a decent (for CAPTalk) number of poll respondents and since the voting has stayed pretty consistent I've gone ahead and locked it for posterity.

Actually, I am extremely pleased at the higher-than-expected level of support for my extremely radical proposal.  If almost half either support getting rid of all of these options or don't care if it is done, then it seems to me that much more modest (and realistic) proposals to cut out some of the less defensible ones may have a chance.

However, it is also possible that eliminating these unnecessary special rules may only be done in an all or nothing fashion.  If we propose to only limit a couple it might be easy to counterargue that those aren't substantially different than the options we are keeping. 

I need to put my thinking cap on.

I voted NO in the Poll because of the way the questions was worded.

QuoteWould you favor eliminating all special appointments, mission-related skill, NCO, and profesional appointments and promotions?

I don't support Eliminating ALL such promotions.  I do think that we should have some reform in the process.  I would actually like to see us adopt an enlisted rank structure because not all members want to be an officer and all that implies even though we know rank doesn't really mean anything in our organization.  Maybe make all Mission related Skills appointments something like warrant officer positions.  I think the Officers of our organization should have some more training than we currently have.

Some revision of the current situation seems necessary.

One thing I'd really like to see eliminated is the possibility of promoting the wing legislative squadron commander to Lt Col...it is, in my view, frequently misused as a means for wing CCs to give otherwise unqualified, inexperienced cronies an undeserved promotion.

In general, I feel all advanced grade appointments should require a minimum of one year service as a CAP senior prior to promotion; this could be as SMWOG, or Flight Officer (if we revised the program to include those over 21 years of age).

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 13, 2012, 07:08:57 PM

Quote from: Chappie on January 13, 2012, 06:39:18 PM
From the Chaplain side of the house ... the professional appointment is necessary due to our MOA with the USAF Chaplain Corps.  So the grade bestowed at appointment is based on the academic standing/ecclessiastical endorsement required.  CAP does offer a waiver for Chaplain applicants who do not have the 72 hour Master's Degree required for an USAF Chaplain applicant but has 5 years of documented Pastoral Experience.  There was a time when promotions were based on TIG -- in other words, breathing in and out.  Chaplains were not required to go past Level 1 for promotions.   That changed in 2007 when the SLS/CLC waiver was dropped and Chaplains are required to complete the SLS/CLC requirement.  That has been a significant change in that Chaplains are now required to know the CAP culture (novel idea, isn't it????).  As with any change, it will take awhile to see the impact ... but based on the experience of those chaplains who previously have completed all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Training program, there will be more chaplains with a better understanding of the way CAP operates.   In addition, the 221 Specialty Track has been updated.   Previously, it was simply reading the 221 and 221A pamphlets (which substituted for SLS/CLC).  That is no longer the practice.  The 221 is the Specialty Track guide, which in addition to the 221A/B/C pamphlets requires tasks to be completed that is commensurate with level of responsibilities assigned to the Chaplain.  As the former Chief of Chaplains stated, "The Chaplain Corps has joined CAP".

Anyone who can figure out the process for becoming a chaplain should be given advanced grade on that merit alone. We recently had a minister join my squadron, and we're currently stuck at "Get an ecclesiastical endorsement" when the list of endorsers is hundreds long and he has received no guidance on exactly which endorser he is supposed to use, or how to get an endorsement from them. I haven't talked to him in awhile though as he has been traveling so he may have worked something out in the interim.

PM sent

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 13, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
One thing I'd really like to see eliminated is the possibility of promoting the wing legislative squadron commander to Lt Col...it is, in my view, frequently misused as a means for wing CCs to give otherwise unqualified, inexperienced cronies an undeserved promotion.

This piqued my interest.  How does that work, unless the WG/CC's cronies are elected officials?  Our legislative squadron "commander" with LtCol rank is also the state governor. And what does it actually matter, since they can't participate in CAP activities (other than by invitation)  or wear uniforms?

Quote from: AirDX on January 16, 2012, 10:16:06 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 13, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
One thing I'd really like to see eliminated is the possibility of promoting the wing legislative squadron commander to Lt Col...it is, in my view, frequently misused as a means for wing CCs to give otherwise unqualified, inexperienced cronies an undeserved promotion.

This piqued my interest.  How does that work, unless the WG/CC's cronies are elected officials?  Our legislative squadron "commander" with LtCol rank is also the state governor. And what does it actually matter, since they can't participate in CAP activities (other than by invitation)  or wear uniforms?

Some wings appoint a regular CAP officer as the Legislative Squadron Commander....to run the squadron and act as the liason between the wing and the legislature.

So....as some point out....a wing commander could cycle his friends through this position and they all get to be Lt Cols.....as there is no time limit or probationary period.

Aha, I see what's going on.  They are using this out of 35-5:

3-3. Wing Legislative Liaison Officers. Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment as the Wing Legislative Liaison Officer.

which actually has nothing to do with being the Leg. Squadron CC. 

Pretty smelly in any case.

Quote from: AirDX on January 18, 2012, 02:08:27 AM
Aha, I see what's going on.  They are using this out of 35-5:

3-3. Wing Legislative Liaison Officers. Wing commanders may advance a senior member to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment as the Wing Legislative Liaison Officer.

which actually has nothing to do with being the Leg. Squadron CC. 

Pretty smelly in any case.

Right above where you found that line you'd find this one

QuoteCommanders of State Legislative Squadrons may be advanced to the grade of lieutenant colonel concurrent with the member's appointment.

I am in favor of eliminating the special promotions. Even the playing field. Learn and experience the program from the ground up. Earn the right to be an officer.

Quote from: TBT on January 22, 2012, 11:28:38 PM
I am in favor of eliminating the special promotions. Even the playing field. Learn and experience the program from the ground up. Earn the right to be an officer.

Okay.....even if it means you will loose a lot of retired military officers?  Just saying.  "even the playing field" and "earn the right o be an officer".......can be mutually exclusive.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 03:17:55 AM

Quote from: TBT on January 22, 2012, 11:28:38 PM
I am in favor of eliminating the special promotions. Even the playing field. Learn and experience the program from the ground up. Earn the right to be an officer.

Okay.....even if it means you will loose a lot of retired military officers?  Just saying.  "even the playing field" and "earn the right o be an officer".......can be mutually exclusive.

So, you're saying that the retired military officers are so vain that they would be offended by being asked to learn how the program they're joining works and to advance through the member development system utilized by that organization?  Seems like you're saying that they're no better than the people that supposedly just join for the bling. 

At a minimum, make them complete the appropriate Professional Development level for their rank within a reasonable amount of time to keep their rank in CAP.   It took me 38 months to achieve Level V.   My wife beat me to Level V by two months but she had a better mentor than I did.  ;)  This is not that hard.

Lets keep CAP from turning into a place where others come to make up for lack of gains in other parts of their life!

Most if the Military officers we've had join in my unit are more interested in our mission than Rank or Professional Development.  If they participate in the PD program it's because they want to do something that requires an advanced PR level.  A couple file the paperwork asking for the equivalency...Most don't.  I currently have a Retired CDR, LCDR and AF Lt.Col that are 2d Lt, 1st Lt and 2d Lt, respectively.  They are more focused on qualifying in ES and AE...The rank isn't a motivator for them.

If the retired officer was willing to take their ball and go home because they they couldn't get their active duty equivalent...I'd be more worried about their Character.  That being said, I do believe that if they want it and can justify it, they should get it with the way things are being done now.  Your experience may vary but the Career Military officers I've dealt with are professionals. They understand that this is a different organization and are more focused on the mission than the Military/uniform culture that is very prevalent in some places.

IMO Extend the flight officers to include members over 21 for mission rated skills promotion. When these members obtain the PD requiremnt they could then be promoted to the current rank as stated in regularions. Members with degrees in the specialty that they are using in CAP or former military should be granted the temporary rank that is currently stated in regulations. But, give them a time limit to meet the PD requirement to permanently keep that grade. ex. 1st. Lt. 12 months, Capt. 18 months, MaJ. 24 MONTHS, Lt. Col 36 months.

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 23, 2012, 03:05:18 PM
IMO Extend the flight officers to include members over 21 for mission rated skills promotion. When these members obtain the PD requiremnt they could then be promoted to the current rank as stated in regularions. Members with degrees in the specialty that they are using in CAP or former military should be granted the temporary rank that is currently stated in regulations. But, give them a time limit to meet the PD requirement to permanently keep that grade. ex. 1st. Lt. 12 months, Capt. 18 months, MaJ. 24 MONTHS, Lt. Col 36 months.

The FO structure is misunderstood enough as it is. Can't we leave it alone?

Flight officer were started so members under 21 could be promoted to a grade other than senior member. When warrant officer grades were allowed these members could be promoted. I was a warrant officer before my 21th birthday. I suggest that we extend them to any age and for mission rated personnel like new pilot, observers, radio operators till they could be advance using the normal PD program with TIG and achievements.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 23, 2012, 04:04:21 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 03:17:55 AM

Quote from: TBT on January 22, 2012, 11:28:38 PM
I am in favor of eliminating the special promotions. Even the playing field. Learn and experience the program from the ground up. Earn the right to be an officer.

Okay.....even if it means you will loose a lot of retired military officers?  Just saying.  "even the playing field" and "earn the right o be an officer".......can be mutually exclusive.

So, you're saying that the retired military officers are so vain that they would be offended by being asked to learn how the program they're joining works and to advance through the member development system utilized by that organization?  Seems like you're saying that they're no better than the people that supposedly just join for the bling.

For some of them....yes that is exactly what I am saying.  I know a few Retired Cols who remain SMWOG because of our rank policy.  I know we will not loose all of them...or even most of them....but we will loose some. IMHO.

I, like ShortField, advocate the "we will give you advanced promotion...but you got to fill in the gaps".   The numbers that OP posted about rank and PD not matching is almost 95% EX military officers.  They all come in get their LT col or Maj ranks right after doing Level I.....and then just stop.  Not that they are not productive members of CAP....they just have a need or a reason to do the CAP PD program.  What's in it for them?  The only carrot is "if you want to get promoted you got finish your Level III"....but he already has the highest promotion he is ever going to get (if he is wearing Lt Col).

Quote from: FARRIER on January 23, 2012, 05:07:48 AM
Lets keep CAP from turning into a place where others come to make up for lack of gains in other parts of their life!

So....are you going to pay us?

Review your Maslow's.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 07:04:38 PM

Quote from: FARRIER on January 23, 2012, 05:07:48 AM
Lets keep CAP from turning into a place where others come to make up for lack of gains in other parts of their life!

So....are you going to pay us?

Review your Maslow's.

LM, PM sent. RM had it right when he mentioned in the past that some come in, making CAP an imaginary career. The mission gets lost in that mindset. The Professional Development program should continue to have the mission mindset built into it somehow. If someone comes in as a Captain because they are a CFI, no problem. Everyone's motivation isn't 100% altruistic, but when someone joins CAP, they shouldn't be joining CAP just to be able to wear LTC Oak Leaves in the future.

Quote from: FARRIER on January 23, 2012, 07:31:11 PMIf someone comes in as a Captain because they are a CFI, no problem.

No problem?  Or no problem if they are using their special skills to CAP's advantage.

A CFI without a Form 5, and who won't do AE training (" 'cause if I wanted to deal with kids, I'd stay home...",  is no more "special then the member who walks in the door with no special skills.

I agree wholeheartedly that CAP, and it's tangible and intangible rewards, should be mission focused, and when our members aren't, then they should
feel some bling pain.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 07:04:38 PM

Quote from: FARRIER on January 23, 2012, 05:07:48 AM
Lets keep CAP from turning into a place where others come to make up for lack of gains in other parts of their life!

So....are you going to pay us?

Review your Maslow's.

So that's all it's about?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png)

Assuming you ascribe to Maslow, CAP falls into the Self-Actualization / Esteem area.  You're going to tell me a military officer isn't already
reading full on his SA/E meter and he needs CAP to re-validate his shoulders?  The intangible reward of volunteerism and the service mentality stressed in the military isn't enough?

It's worth repeating that many members who are military officers feel it cheapens the grade to just give it to them when they haven't earned it
through their knowledge and service to CAP.

People are always changing/evovlving/growing/contracting.

When they were Col Bigjob of the USAF....the USAF was fullfilling all of their needs....but then they retired and moved.

So they join CAP to fullfill thier belonging,selfesteem needs.

And here is an intresting point you made........"The intangible reward of volunteerism and the service mentality stressed in the military isn't enough?"
Situational leadership.....means you must read each and everyone of your people and find what motivates each one of them.  Sometimes the warm fuzzy of being a volunteer is NOT enought to get the job done.  Even on active duty the core values are NOT enough.....high pay and benifits are NOT enough.  That is why I am support so much bling, and an inclusive rank structure. 

Each and everyone of these things are tools we use to get the job done.

I can care less why someone joins (unless it is to get access to kids in a bad way).  Join because your parole officer said to, join because you thing it looks good on a scholorship application, join for the free benifits that some bases may give to CAP member, join because you get a full on woody playing army man......I don't care.

I CARE about two things.   Protecting our cadets....and getting the mission done.  In a perfect world.....we would have 50,000 independantly wealthy pilots who have no jobs, family or other things to distract them from giving 40+ hours a week to CAP.....but that is not what we have.  We have volunteers....who join for may different reasons.  The ability to continue to serve their country.  The ability to serve their country in lieu of military service.  The chance to give back.  The opportunity to fly.  The oppornity to go camping.  The chance to get away from their wives and families for a while.  CAP fullfills many MASLOW needs....safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualization.

There is no one size fits all leadership style because there is not size fits all senior member (or cadet).

So...back to the OP.

Okay....we have a lot of high ranking senior members who have not completed CAP's PD program.

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

OK, fair enough.

So in a CAP paradigm, where the grade is "meaningless" "irrespective of authority", so the military paradigm of "accepting promotion means you are accepting more responsibility" does not apply.   Therefore, CAP grade is, in fact, a reward for previous accomplishments, not a call to future performance.
Our rhetoric is to the contrary, but in practice this is true.

And with the assumption that "member fulfillment" is not a mission of CAP, but is, in fact, a means to an end...

...Which is more likely to be successful on the whole, from the perspective of the organization?

Reward for verifiable performance, or a "thank you for joining gift"?

Further, what has more value to the member?  A "Thank you for joining gift?", or something they actually had to earn (with "earn" being a subjective term).  I don't know about you, but I earned my oaks with those 40 hour weeks, encampments, away ES missions, and two successful commands, but
it doesn't exactly warm my coffee to encounter folks of equal, or higher, grade who don't have a clue, yet aspire to even further "greatness". 

It doesn't wreck my day, but it doesn't make it any better, other than on the ironic / comedic scale.

How much more valuable all the way around would it be if we required CFI's to earn an O-ride ribbon or make AE Senior before pinning on those tracks?
That's a full pilot, 50 rides, and / or a competent AE instructor.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 PM
Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 23, 2012, 09:21:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 PM
Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Not bad, but I would add SOME PD courses so these folks have an idea how CAP works outside of ES.
SLS for Team Leader/Branch Director
CLC or UCC for IC
I really don't think that's too much to ask.

Me neither.

Frankly I would like to see SLS required for the membership ribbon.  Leave Level 1 as-is, but make the ribbon actually mean something.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 23, 2012, 09:21:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 PM
Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Why would MP be higher than MO as MP does NOT have to be an MO?  They both have to be MS qualified.  AOBD only requires MO or MP to start training. 

Should there be a minimum TIG, or certain number of training missions, actual missions, hours/sorties flown?

Would people have to choose what track they go; ie: if you are active in PD and ES, do you have to choose one or the other?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 09:21:14 PMFurther, what has more value to the member?  A "Thank you for joining gift?", or something they actually had to earn (with "earn" being a subjective term).  I don't know about you, but I earned my oaks with those 40 hour weeks, encampments, away ES missions, and two successful commands, but it doesn't exactly warm my coffee to encounter folks of equal, or higher, grade who don't have a clue, yet aspire to even further "greatness".

Well that's my point....'value" is in the eye of the beholder.  What is valuable to YOU is different than was is valuable to ME and that is different with each and everyone in CAP.  You earned your rank the "hard way"....okay....now you have sour grapes over those who get some sort of free pass.  So....your solution.....to the "problem" is to take away the candy from those who have not "earned it".....forget about the reasoning behind the advanced promotion (abused or not there is a reason behind it).  So in stead of fixing the "abuse" you decide to just take away the recruiting tool and making everyone's job harder.

QuoteHow much more valuable all the way around would it be if we required CFI's to earn an O-ride ribbon or make AE Senior before pinning on those tracks?  That's a full pilot, 50 rides, and / or a competent AE instructor.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable.

I don't think that is unreasonable....just as I don't think it is unresaonable to make those who get advanced promotions to complete the PD program to keep their rank.....but both of those suggestions are different then just eliminating the advanced promotions.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 11:03:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

Normal duty performance would organically get most members to the same general grade at about the same rate, even people who did a national ES school would not be able to progress much ahead of their peers.

This would certainly negate the arguments people make that Es takes too much time to worry about PD, etc.

ES is a core, high-visibility mission.  Why not recognize the performers?  Anyone who attains GBD / AOBD or higher is certainly just as valuable to CAP in terms of capabilities and experience as in in-the-door military officer, Dr., CFI, or teacher, etc.

You could also turn ES into an actual "elite" thing within the organization.

"How'ed that guy get to be a Major in 4 years?"

"Check out the IC badge and the decked out SAR ribbon!"

(And there's really no point in trying to interject the "What about people who are Parker 51 GBDs!"  There will always be people who abuse the system, no matter what you do, but that should not shape the system itself, beyond standard controls)

At what rate does duty performance allow you to promote?  Normal professional development?

Spitballing, I'd say no more than 1-click a year, or maybe every two, but if we're talking about promotions around
ES positions, then for the most part TIG is self limiting. 

Few people reach for GBD before they are GTM1/GTL, but even the minimum is going to take a solid year, even factoring in
NESA or similar schools.  Another year for GBD, and probably a year apiece for OSC, PSC, and IC.

I don't think you'd see too many people getting to Lt. Col. / IC in less than 5-6 years minimum, and of course all IC's have to be
wing endorsed anyway, so if you're a goober, then that route would be closed anyway.

Anyone who can make it to IC in 5-6 years is at least as qualified as most other Lt. Col.'s in his peer group.

And there's no reason you'd have to be single-tracked - make it to Major via ES, but do normal PD work and then move to O-5 that way.
Members involved in ES like this would likely be looking to serve as ESO's and OPS officers anyway, during down time.

Well....after 6 pages of this.....I have to ask....what exactly is the problem that we are trying to fix?

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 23, 2012, 09:21:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 PM
Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Except that you're treating non-pilot aircrew members (MO) on unequal footing with pilots. In some places, the MO is the "aircrew leader" while the MP drives the bus, much like how the guy behind the wheel of the van isn't always the GTL (in fact, that's preferred). You've essentially made it so that in order to promote a non-pilot MO has to go two quals higher than a pilot.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 01:59:26 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

If there is a skill that can be used, I don't have a problem.  If they get promoted for a skill that can't be used, why should they get ahead of me.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 01:59:26 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

No - you asked what this thread was about.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2012, 02:02:45 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 01:59:26 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

If there is a skill that can be used, I don't have a problem.  If they get promoted for a skill that can't be used, why should they get ahead of me.

That's not the "problem" as defined by Eclipse.

I got nothing wrong with looking at the regulations and saying....do we need to give health care professionals or aircraft mechanics advanced promotions?   I know that those are just old rules from the days we needed those skills.....but that is a different question then saying "everyone" must go up the same PD process.

I didn't "define" any problem - this isn't my thread.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 24, 2012, 01:45:39 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 23, 2012, 09:21:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 PM
Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Except that you're treating non-pilot aircrew members (MO) on unequal footing with pilots. In some places, the MO is the "aircrew leader" while the MP drives the bus, much like how the guy behind the wheel of the van isn't always the GTL (in fact, that's preferred). You've essentially made it so that in order to promote a non-pilot MO has to go two quals higher than a pilot.

I don't claim this list was a product of deep contemplative thought.  It was more of a "for instance".

That said, MO->AOBD is a valid path as well, so it's only one qual for the MO to get to the same point as the MP.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 02:03:54 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 01:59:26 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

No - you asked what this thread was about.

Did not......I asked what problem we are trying to solve.  The problem is "inconsistent critera....based on....."
So the problem is that people with skills listed in the regs get a pass and others (you) don't.

What is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 23, 2012, 11:03:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

Note, I predicated my "for instance" on that CP/AE could likely come up with a similar structure...my focus has been on ES, but maybe in AE, the Yeager gets you something, and perhaps some more types of awards (sorry, I don't know AE all that well).

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2012, 02:12:46 AM
Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

I'll be some time to become an MP (hours).  I did the route MS-MO-AOBD-PSC.  AOBD is one of the most fun jobs I've ever done!

Maybe put something intermediate at 1st Lt (like AP) and bump MO/MP to the same level...like I said, it was not a deeply thought out progression, just a top-of-my-head thought.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 02:12:00 AMWhat is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

The answer is in your question grasshopper.

People rarely appreciate anything which is "given".

Worse still, it impacts the morale of people who actually do something for you when they see how hard they had to work for something which is just "given" to others who seem to be part of some irrelevant, but empowered, club.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2012, 02:12:46 AM
Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

Well, than that route is closed to you, look for something else.  I have no interest in flying an airplane, so it's the same argument for a different reason.

This is a 1/2 baked idea to reward members for actual performance.  We all know that in a performance-based system, people are never equal.

I wonder why people who wonder what a thread is about or why it was started just don't re-read the opening post that they responded to on the first day it was up?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 02:24:23 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 02:12:00 AMWhat is the PROBLEM of giving people advanced promotions based on their skills?   Not...are those skills needed or do they use those skills.....what is the PROBLEM with giving people advanced promotions?

The answer is in your question grasshopper.

People rarely appreciate anything which is "given".

Worse still, it impacts the morale of people who actually do something for you when they see how hard they had to work for something which is just "given" to others who seem to be part of some irrelevant, but empowered, club.

Oh.....so it is about the social decline of America now.  Yes....we need to stop this now.  No advanced promotions....because someone may not appreciate it.   And again....those who had to WORK for it may get pissed.

Yep....called it a while ago,  Sour Grapes.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 02:33:46 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 24, 2012, 02:12:46 AM
Except I can not be a MP no matter what.

Well, than that route is closed to you, look for something else.  I have no interest in flying an airplane, so it's the same argument for a different reason.

This is a 1/2 baked idea to reward members for actual performance.  We all know that in a performance-based system, people are never equal.

No, it was just a question of skipping a grade. It was answered.  I just think that having 3 ways to promote is way too complicated. We have a hard time as it is.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
Yep....called it a while ago,  Sour Grapes.

With your experience you have never seen the negative, counterproductive side of this issue?

It's one thing for people to abuse or "play" the system, you really believe that inconsistently rewarding volunteers as an organizational
policy is a good way to incentive performance?

The fact that it's not the #1 thing "broke", doesn't change the academic merits of the argument.

Until the rank thing is fix.....then it does not matter. 

I think that the few people like you who are bent because former cadets, former military officers, former Military SNCO, Pilots with advanced certs, doctors, EMTs, aircraft mechanics, CPAs, Educators and Lawyers.....get a meaning less promotion.....are off set by the recruiting value that advanced promotion brings.

I agree with RiverAux that if you are a Lt Col you should know a lot about CAP....and they should fill in the gap in a reasonable time.
I also agree that maybe we should look at the advanced promotion list and eliminate those skill catagories we don't need.

But you cannot say that CAP does not need CFIs.  You cannot say CAP does not need CPA's or AE educators.
The management of these members is up to the unit commanders.....if the Capt CFI does not do anything for your unit....then you demote him.  It is pretty simple.  But don't take away the tool because someone else does not know how to use it properly.

If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter period.   The argument that grade is meaningless in CAP, but is somehow an important
recruiting tool doesn't compute, in fact it's somewhat insulting to the potential member to offer them a perk on joining only for them
to find later that it doesn't mean anything.

We both know it does, in fact mean something, to everyone, even those who pretend it doesn't, and that's where the recruiting
value comes from, and in turn why everyone should have to earn it on a relatively even footing.

There is no "recruiting value" in signing up people who are given rewards but never perform. You're simply ignoring my comments to that effect.

Yes, we need experienced professionals to run our programs and grow our capabilities. We do not need people who join for the bling and
then never actually provide CAP any services related to their talent.

This is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 07:21:16 AMThis is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

Then let's talk about that.  Because except for a couple of us....everyone is only talking about eliminating advanced promotions.
Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.
You did have a good idea about making those who get advanced promotions for providing their skills to the organisation to somehow proove that.

Let's talk about that.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 07:36:07 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2012, 07:21:16 AMThis is not about taking away a tool, this is about making the tool have real value.

Then let's talk about that.  Because except for a couple of us....everyone is only talking about eliminating advanced promotions.

Patrick, you've been around long enough that all of us in the last few pages of this thread have had numerous discussions about that issue and I'm sure we'll talk about them again.  There are many, many pieces of the puzzle to making the CAP professional development and grade system better, but the advanced promotion system just may be the easiest one to address and is the sole subject of this thread. 

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 07:36:07 AM
Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.

Instead of granting the promotion and having them "Catch Up",because frequently there is little incentive to do so, and it's harder to take something away after it's already been granted.  Would you think it was feasible to do what another poster stated earlier in the thread to just remove the TIG requirements for those eligible for advanced promotions?  For Example, a retired AF Lt. Col...Gets 2d Lt immediately finishing level 1, Capt when complete with Level 2 etc....All the way up to Lt. Col when they complete level 4?

I'd frame the problem as ensuring that all CAP senior members share the same base knowledge about CAP, and build on that base as they progress through the program.

Perhaps the answer is to define "what does a 2 Lt. need to know? a captain? a major?" and proceed from there, determining what the best method is for getting those deserving advanced grade "caught up".

I still feel very strongly that one year's CAPs service ought to precede the granting of advanced rank, either as SMWOG or some sort of flight officer.

I also believe we ought to develop a mechanism for recognizing the service of military O-6s and general officers; perhaps their membership could be at National level, and their local involvement "ADY". Let them wear their earned grade, but make clear where they stand in the chain of command.

Quote from: SARDOC on January 24, 2012, 02:11:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 07:36:07 AM
Only Short Field and I have suggested making those with advanced promotions to catch up.

Instead of granting the promotion and having them "Catch Up",because frequently there is little incentive to do so, and it's harder to take something away after it's already been granted.  Would you think it was feasible to do what another poster stated earlier in the thread to just remove the TIG requirements for those eligible for advanced promotions?  For Example, a retired AF Lt. Col...Gets 2d Lt immediately finishing level 1, Capt when complete with Level 2 etc....All the way up to Lt. Col when they complete level 4?

Sure that is a viable option.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2012, 02:19:36 PM
Perhaps the answer is to define "what does a 2 Lt. need to know? a captain? a major?" and proceed from there,

We do that now through the current professional development program.   In order to move up you have to take various classes, demonstrate knowledge and/or successfully carry out programs at various levels of CAP.   It clearly lays out what a CAP Major should know and be able to do within the CAP program.

Lets just make everyone do it. 

While we're at it, let's give all Lt. Col. promotees a free consultation at Hair Club for Men - most of them could use it.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 24, 2012, 07:56:14 PM
While we're at it, let's give all Lt. Col. promotees a free consultation at Hair Club for Men - most of them could use it.

For that matter, so do a lot of our Lieutenants. ;D

Quote from: RiverAux on January 24, 2012, 07:46:01 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2012, 02:19:36 PM
Perhaps the answer is to define "what does a 2 Lt. need to know? a captain? a major?" and proceed from there,

We do that now through the current professional development program.   In order to move up you have to take various classes, demonstrate knowledge and/or successfully carry out programs at various levels of CAP.   It clearly lays out what a CAP Major should know and be able to do within the CAP program.

Lets just make everyone do it.

An let's completely ignore the unintended consequences when all those Retireed types refuse to join or quit?

Let's not throw the baby out with the wash water!

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 11:06:20 PMAn let's completely ignore the unintended consequences when all those Retireed types refuse to join or quit?

If these "retired types" will only join to be given things as "thanks for joining gifts", and refuse to progress in the program, I'll hold the door for them on the way out.

We'd have a better ROI on squeeze balls, pens, and t-shirts.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 11:06:20 PM
An let's completely ignore the unintended consequences when all those Retireed types refuse to join or quit?

And thats one of the reasons I mentioned in the my original post for this thread -- there is absolutely no evidence that this system has any impact whatsoever on recruiting.  If someone can prove to me that it is helping recruit people that wouldn't have joined anyway, then I'll reconsider.  If all we're doing is giving a reward to someone who was going to join anyway, we can safely discard the system.  I think the latter is more likely. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 25, 2012, 02:04:33 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 11:06:20 PM
An let's completely ignore the unintended consequences when all those Retireed types refuse to join or quit?

And thats one of the reasons I mentioned in the my original post for this thread -- there is absolutely no evidence that this system has any impact whatsoever on recruiting.  If someone can prove to me that it is helping recruit people that wouldn't have joined anyway, then I'll reconsider.  If all we're doing is giving a reward to someone who was going to join anyway, we can safely discard the system.  I think the latter is more likely.

I think the burden of proof should be on you.

You should show that making the change will not have an adverse impact on recruiting...or any impact will be offset by the benifits of the change.

Like I said.....clearly eliminating advanced promotions for Health Professionals and Aircraft mechanics will not have much of an impact.
I would have to see the numbers for pilots and military retirees and do some field research before I would (If I were the National Commander) sign off on any changes that would take away thier rank.

If it ain't broke....why fix it?

Quote from: lordmonar on January 25, 2012, 07:17:21 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 25, 2012, 02:04:33 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 24, 2012, 11:06:20 PM
An let's completely ignore the unintended consequences when all those Retireed types refuse to join or quit?

And thats one of the reasons I mentioned in the my original post for this thread -- there is absolutely no evidence that this system has any impact whatsoever on recruiting.  If someone can prove to me that it is helping recruit people that wouldn't have joined anyway, then I'll reconsider.  If all we're doing is giving a reward to someone who was going to join anyway, we can safely discard the system.  I think the latter is more likely.

I think the burden of proof should be on you.

You should show that making the change will not have an adverse impact on recruiting...or any impact will be offset by the benifits of the change.

Like I said.....clearly eliminating advanced promotions for Health Professionals and Aircraft mechanics will not have much of an impact.
I would have to see the numbers for pilots and military retirees and do some field research before I would (If I were the National Commander) sign off on any changes that would take away thier rank.

If it ain't broke....why fix it?

I agree with you on that -- Although I did get advance rank for being a retired military officer (and have since completed level III and also gained a CAP promotion), it wasn't the REASON WHY I joined CAP.  Surely IF the regulation allows advance rank, why not happily accept it (there's plenty of other punitive compliance regulations that members have to comply with).

As far as advance rank for Doctors/Other Medical Professionals and other advance rank for aviation related skills -- I've found that these personnel do come in handy with their expertise (and they aren't even going to say anything to anyone when they intervene).  I've also seen locally promotions held for a bit to see what the individuals would contribute to the unit.  I do think there's controls in the system currently that the adult leadership can utilize IF the advanced member does not live up to expectations.  Surely when an adult joins a unit the leadership is going to set some sort of expectation with that individual.

Also it's amazing about the occasional "jealously" that is exhibited by a very small minority against those that get advanced rank.   Perhaps these long time members are best referred to as "members that love to play military dress up" or who are into some sort of ego trip, that they "know it all" due to their years of service in CAP and no one else knows anything.  I personally just can't figure that out because I don't personally put it (the rank) in anyones face, because most of the time I'm just in a golf shirt.  I'm willing to bet that most retired military personnel operate in the same low key way.
RM     

Quote from: lordmonar on January 25, 2012, 07:17:21 AM
I think the burden of proof should be on you.

No, all of these advanced promotions exist as EXCEPTIONS to the general rule of CAP life, which requires you to progress through the PD system to move up in rank.  For an EXCEPTION to exist, there should be a good reason for that exception.  If you are going to make an exception, you need to prove that it is a good idea.

If its not obvious to everyone that the exception is either necessary or provides some useful benefit to CAP, then it should go away.

Now, you want me to prove that the exceptions are unnecessary.  Okay, if I went around asking everyone who got one of these whether it affected their decision to join CAP, do you really think more than a handful would say "Yes, I joined so I could get a higher rank once I'm a member"?    Get real.  No one is going to SAY that, even if it was the truth. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 25, 2012, 01:57:10 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 25, 2012, 07:17:21 AM
I think the burden of proof should be on you.

No,

Sir,

YOU are proposing a change to existing regulations.  Regulations that were validly enacted by our senior leadership, and that have been in effect for decades.  I suppose I don't need to point out that despite the regulation you compain about, we have managed to save lives, train cadets, and educate ourselves and the public on aerospace topics.

Since you are proposing the change, the burden is indeed on you to show why the change should be made.  Otherwise we descend into the sillyness of some sort of Seinfeld episode. 

Quote"Hey, what is it with Regulation X?  I mean, seriously?  Prove to me that regulation X is necessary and maybe I'll shut up and follow it.  I think we should change it to Regulation Y.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Regulation Y would be much better cause I say so.  If you can't prove I'm wrong, then I must be right."

That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Wait, there's a difference?   >:D

Quote from: JeffDG on January 25, 2012, 05:56:26 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Wait, there's a difference?   >:D

I believe  loggers would be a _subset of ^malcontents.

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
Sir,

YOU are proposing a change to existing regulations.  Regulations that were validly enacted by our senior leadership, and that have been in effect for decades.  I suppose I don't need to point out that despite the regulation you compain about, we have managed to save lives, train cadets, and educate ourselves and the public on aerospace topics.

Irrelevant (or maybe logical fallacy?) - that we are theoretically successful in our mission, does not negate the significant amount of internal angst and unnecessary drama during the rest of our operations, which encompass the majority of our time.

The inconsistent award of grade and decorations is absolutely a significant problem for CAP, and it costs us a considerable amount of member good will and has cost us more than a few good members as well.

Giving grade to new guys as "welcome gifts" with no expectation of ramifications for non-performance is not the sole reason for the above, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

Every time a new slick-sleeve looks to a Captain for a simple answer and the response is "I have no idea...", a kitten dies, but worse so does a piece of our credibility.   

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 06:54:45 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
Sir,

YOU are proposing a change to existing regulations.  Regulations that were validly enacted by our senior leadership, and that have been in effect for decades.  I suppose I don't need to point out that despite the regulation you compain about, we have managed to save lives, train cadets, and educate ourselves and the public on aerospace topics.

Irrelevant (or maybe logical fallacy?) - that we are theoretically successful in our mission, does not negate the significant amount of internal angst and unnecessary drama during the rest of our operations, which encompass the majority of our time.

The inconsistent award of grade and decorations is absolutely a significant problem for CAP, and it costs us a considerable amount of member good will and has cost us more than a few good members as well.

Giving grade to new guys as "welcome gifts" with no expectation of ramifications for non-performance is not the sole reason for the above, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

Every time a new slick-sleeve looks to a Captain for a simple answer and the response is "I have no idea...", a kitten dies, but worse so does a piece of our credibility.

I haven't been around nearly as long as you have, but I've never heard of a member quitting CAP because someone else got a promotion before they did.

And even if they did, I don't want them. Why? Because things aren't always fair, and a member who doesn't realize that isn't mature enough to be a successful SM. I don't need more people stamping their feet, I need people willing to do the missions and follow the rules as they exist now, not take their ball and go home.

Quote from: phirons on January 25, 2012, 06:51:09 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 25, 2012, 05:56:26 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Wait, there's a difference?   >:D

I believe bloggers would be a _subset of ^malcontents.

FTFY

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 25, 2012, 07:27:54 PMI haven't been around nearly as long as you have, but I've never heard of a member quitting CAP because someone else got a promotion before they did.

And even if they did, I don't want them. Why? Because things aren't always fair, and a member who doesn't realize that isn't mature enough to be a successful SM. I don't need more people stamping their feet, I need people willing to do the missions and follow the rules as they exist now, not take their ball and go home.

Agreed, for the most part, but this isn't a black and white situation, and further, like most discussions easier on the macro, then when a valued, productive member is standing in front of you asking why >he's< been denied a promotion, when he sees "That new guy who just showed up and they gave him "x".  You can try the management speak, etc., but unlike professional employment, CAP is mostly just a bunch of old women sitting on the porch knowing everybody's business, and people know whether someone is doing something or not.  I don't care if you are a butter-bar or a two-star,
new CAP members with no previous CAP experience are generally useless for 6-months to a year as they ramp-up their understanding and qualifications.
Can they help?  Sure, but most of their time is spent learning, not serving in any meaningful way related to experience from outside that might garner them a "welcome gift".

Since we don't train combat troops, and many seniors disdain the military mindset, a brigade commander is not likely to have much more to offer
than any other well-experienced manager from the private sector, and they are both going to get befuddled by the WBP.

Rarely would someone quit as a direct result of these things, more so it is a degradation of their initiative and interest in "the nonsense' that slowly moves them away from the organization. This is demonstrable and I'm sure you seen that sort of thing already.

The only thing that "welcome gifts" incentivize is joining, and the only thing joining fulfills is a recruiter's mission.
Recruiting is not a mission, per se, of CAP.  Recruiting is a tool of the organization to fulfill the real missions.

Recruiting using "welcome gifts" serves no purpose in retention, and may well be a negative factor in that regard.  The motivation for
professional development should be wanting to be a better staff officer, but the unevenness of some of our higher training such
as SLS/CLC means that in some cases the only way we can get people involved is the carrot of the grade.  Welcome gifts remove that
from a commander's tool box, and further gives the impression to the member that they "already know everything they need" coming in
the door.   "No, you know how to fly an airplane, you do not know how to fly an airplane for CAP."
As we all know, CAP is excellent at recruiting, but very poor at retention, and can't seem to figure out why. Here's one of your factors.

I will again repeat the anecdote about the field-grade officer who, when called on something very basic, told a commander that
"I read FARs, not regulations".  Very nice.

Bottom line, you can't play both sides of the argument with this. Anything which has value for recruiting, has a value, or at least a meaning, to everyone, and the interpretation of something subjective like this is usually in the eyes of the beholder.  (i.e. "Sorry, but your 18 months attending unit meetings, encampments, SAREx's, and overnight training is not as valuable to CAP as the check this new guy wrote, so you get one bar and he gets two...).

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 06:54:45 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
Sir,

YOU are proposing a change to existing regulations.  Regulations that were validly enacted by our senior leadership, and that have been in effect for decades.  I suppose I don't need to point out that despite the regulation you compain about, we have managed to save lives, train cadets, and educate ourselves and the public on aerospace topics.

Irrelevant (or maybe logical fallacy?) - that we are theoretically successful in our mission, does not negate the significant amount of internal angst and unnecessary drama during the rest of our operations, which encompass the majority of our time.

The inconsistent award of grade and decorations is absolutely a significant problem for CAP, and it costs us a considerable amount of member good will and has cost us more than a few good members as well.

Giving grade to new guys as "welcome gifts" with no expectation of ramifications for non-performance is not the sole reason for the above, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.

Every time a new slick-sleeve looks to a Captain for a simple answer and the response is "I have no idea...", a kitten dies, but worse so does a piece of our credibility.

Okay....that's all we are saying.....In my experince with CAP I have not see any of thi s"significant amount of internal angst and unnecessary drama" nor has it "cost us a considerable amount of member good will and has cust us more then a few good memers...".

All I said was if THAT is your view of the problem....then prove it!  Give me some numbers, give me some anacdotal case studies....give me something.

If in fact, which I doubt, is a significant problem.....then we can look at possible solutions.  Killing advanced grade may solve one proble "angst" and "lost members" but it may create other problems "lost retired military members" "lost high skilled pilots/lawyers/CPA/AE Educators/Medical/A&P mechanics".

Once the problems have been identified, we brain storm possible fixes, we look at those fixes and see what the impact they may have.   

I said before....don't thow the baby out with the wash water.  There may be other solutions that still allow us to recruit those special skills, and retired military AND reduce the angst and heart burn of other members and potential members.

All I ask of you is to prove your inital premise.....that advanced promotions are not necessar (River Aux) and/or they creat angst and effect recruiting/retention.   If you can show me that those are really problems.....Im all in for a solution.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 07:52:11 PMBottom line, you can't play both sides of the argument with this. Anything which has value for recruiting, has a value, or at least a meaning, to everyone, and the interpretation of something subjective like this is usually in the eyes of the beholder.  (i.e. "Sorry, but your 18 months attending unit meetings, encampments, SAREx's, and overnight training is not as valuable to CAP as the check this new guy wrote, so you get one bar and he gets two...).

Strange.

I see that all the time in the real world and the military.

Signing bonuses, extra stripes for signing up for six years, extra stripes for joining the right AFSC, extra stripes for having college, JROTC, CAP.

Recruiting, training, and utilisation are all run by the same guy in CAP....the squadron commander.

So......who is dropping the ball?  You recruit the guy, you use the advanced promotion to get him to join, you then train him to do the job and then you manage him doing it.

IF you don't need perspecitive member X and his skills.....don't recruit him.  If you do need him recruit him.  If you don't need the extra tool of advanced promotion to seal the deal....good on you....nothing is garanteed....you don't have to give him the advanced promotion....you don't even need to tell him about it.   If you do need the member and his skills and you need the advanced promotion to seal the deal.....and he then fails to follow through and use those skills for your squadron.....demote him....it's in your power to do so.

So......I don't really understand where the problem is comming from.  You have heart burn about pilots who are CFIs so they get captain but then never use their skills.......be a leader and manage them. 

If your problem is what happens in other squadrons......well.....you can't fix that.....and you should not try to fix that.  Leave the tools alone.   If you really feel that driven.....take on Group/Wing leadership and then lead your subordinate commanders in your vision of how things should be done.

You cannot compare compensated organizations with direct command structures and explicit expectations, with a bunch of uncompensated volunteers who receive little to no training in leadership and essentially are all equals.

The only way to compensate for the uneven training and lack of personal leadership is with clear, specific guidance as to the expectations of those who receive promotions and decorations.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
You cannot compare compensated organizations with direct command structures and explicit expectations, with a bunch of uncompensated volunteers who receive little to know training in leadership and essentially are all equals.

The only way to compensate for the uneven training and lack of personal leadership is with clear, specific guidance as to the expectations of those who receive promotions and decorations.

Okay...ignore the comparison.

I'll grant you that for the sake of argument.

However, you still need to show that the damage of the current system out weighs the possible damage of completely eliminating advanced promotions.

Its really quite simple -- the only potential benefit of the current system is as an incentive to join.  There is no proof that this works. 

The benefit of eliminating the current system is that everyone has to learn the same things and be capable of generally the same level of performance in the context of CAP in order to promote.  The benefit of this should be obvious to everyone. 

Do you truly believe that the recruiting value, if it actually exists, of the advanced promotion system is significantly more important to CAP than it is to make everyone use the CAP PD system? 

Now, if you want to say that the CAP PD system is useless and we might as well eliminate ranks, then fine.  There is nothing that we're going to be able to say about making the PD system universal that you're going to see as a benefit. 

How do we "show it"?  Start naming names?  Those of us with experience, especially the commanders, and you know that this issue raised all the time.

And there is no risk to eliminating is because it's not an effective tool as it is.

Can you show any instances where giving someone something, especially with no follow-on expectations, increases the value of the thing given and spurs that person on to even more effort?

We live in a world where people will stand in line for 15 minutes for a free pen, then throw it out on the way home.  If your recruiting conversations
tell people they can be a "Captain day-1.", then that sets the minimum expectation in their head, and that becomes a check-box.  If you tell them
that they can earn grade with work and effort, that becomes the expectation.

The "welcome gifts" do the same thing to CAP.  Someone who legitimately earns something is far more likely to value it, and also encourage others to do the same.

Who's more inclined to follow directives?  Someone who was given Captain or someone who earned it?

Who's more inclined to properly wear the uniform?  Someone who was given Captain or someone who earned it?

Who's more inclined to progress further?  Someone who was given Captain or who earned it?
(On this one, we routinely hear pilots say how they've got a 3-4+ year "pass" on "bothering with PD" because they've "already got what the tracks...")

I know of serveral CFI's who have gotten their capt's bars and went on to do a lot of good for CAP.
I know of two educators who came in with advanced promotions and have have done a great job for CAP.
I know of at least 20 retired officers who have done a great job for CAP.
I know of at least one retired Col who refuses to advance in the PD system and refuses to accept grade because he can't wear his Col Birds.....something like a 8 year SMWOG.

I know of NOT ONE member except you has ever said they had heart burn over others getting advanced promotions.

I have only been in CAP for 9 years now......so by my experince the advanced promotion system does bring in talented, skilled members.

Your idea would remove one of the tools that helped bring them in.  BEFORE I, if I were the National CC, signed off on eleminating advanced promotions.....I would need to see concrete examples of how they negetively affect CAP and a clear undersanding of all the consequences that eliminaiting advanced promotions would have on recruiting.

Your argument that "those who work for it" are more likely to follow the rules....to use your tag line....cite please.

You are simply making unsubstantiated assertions.

So I say again....I don't have to prove if the current system works or not......you have to prove that it is failing and/or causing damage and that damage is worse then the possible loss of the benifit we get from it.


To River Aux, you ask do I believe the recruiting values out weighs the significance of everyone doing the PD system.....I don't know.  But I have said before and continue to say....why can't we have both.
Continue to have the advance promotions and contine to reap the recruiting benifits.......AND make those who have advance promotions do the PD system in a reasonable time frame (say one year per level) or they lose their grade.

That solves the "problem"  No more Lt Cols with just Level I.
He joins in 2012 he has until 2014 to finish his level II, he has untiel 2015 to finish his Level III and 2016 to finish Level IV.

If he finishes Level II in 2012 but fails to get his Level II by 2015 then he get's demoted to Capt.

Simple. Easy to follow, Easy to manage with E-services.

So that way we fix your "problem" of CAP officers who supposedly don't know their jobs....and we keep the recuiting tool.

???

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 25, 2012, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: phirons on January 25, 2012, 06:51:09 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on January 25, 2012, 05:56:26 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 25, 2012, 04:55:31 PM
That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Wait, there's a difference?   >:D

I believe bloggers would be a _subset of ^malcontents.

FTFY

Maybe I was talking about Ax Men?

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 12:42:59 AMI know of NOT ONE member except you has ever said they had heart burn over others getting advanced promotions.

Don't know of anyone?  There's people in this thread that have an issue with it...

As to the value of "that which is given vs. that which is earned", that is simply common sense.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 12:42:59 AM
I know of NOT ONE member except you has ever said they had heart burn over others getting advanced promotions.

Just a reminder that over 40% of respondents to our (totally unscientific) poll say that all advanced promotions should be eliminated or wouldn't care if they were.

Yes, you most certainly hold the majority view, but the number of folks that take the most extreme view possible (eliminate ALL advanced promotions) is certainly not insignificant.  And, since even you are in favor of eliminating some of the advanced promotions as not having any direct benefit to CAP, I don't think we're coming totally out of left field here.

But, since we're down to three people actively participating, I think we've taken this thread as far as its likely to go.

I'm reading. I just haven't come up with any opinions yet, since I'm sitting on the fence about the subject.

I'm in a senor squadron with 25-30 active members. We have 5 rated mission pilots, and 3 or 4 more in training. There are 8 or 10 members who have joined in the past 5 years who were eligible for advanced rank, almost all of whom were pilots, and a couple of retired military officers. All of them were told up front that any advanced promotions were predicated on actively participating in squadron activities, both staff and ES. One pilot (I'm unsure of any prior military affiliation), who was looking for "free flying", ended up taking his skills elsewhere. Other than that, I don't think that advanced rank really made any difference to anyone.

Quote from: SarDragon on January 26, 2012, 06:45:41 AM
I'm reading. I just haven't come up with any opinions yet, since I'm sitting on the fence about the subject.

I'm in a senor squadron with 25-30 active members. We have 5 rated mission pilots, and 3 or 4 more in training. There are 8 or 10 members who have joined in the past 5 years who were eligible for advanced rank, almost all of whom were pilots, and a couple of retired military officers. All of them were told up front that any advanced promotions were predicated on actively participating in squadron activities, both staff and ES. One pilot (I'm unsure of any prior military affiliation), who was looking for "free flying", ended up taking his skills elsewhere. Other than that, I don't think that advanced rank really made any difference to anyone.

That's true. In the grand scheme of things, the whole intent of the concept is to attract people that lend credibility and value to the senior member program. I have known numerous individuals who did just that when they entered the CAP and our program did not suffer from their involvement. Even in those cases where the individual didn't participate much, his or her affiliation was critical to a unit because of that person's position with the local community.

It seemed to me that the people with the most heartburn about advanced promotions were those who came in off the street and had to work their way through the program, but if we as an organization are to thrive, you have to be able to attract these individuals. The problem is that when you have that advanced rank, you expect them to have the same technical, management or leadership skills as someone who has had to earn the same rank the hard way.

Yet, even in the military there sometimes is a similar gripe. I'm of that era in the cadet program when a Mitchell Cadet or someone with three years of JROTC only earned one stripe when they entered the Air Force. When the program changed to allow an E-3 upon entry, the common gripe was that that rank represented an individual with a certain degree of skill or experience that they didn't have.

So you have someone that becomes an 'instant' captain because of a technical skill or license, the reality is that the membership should have a better understanding and then mentor that individual to the degree of leadership you are looking for. I am personally aware of a former wing commander (now deceased) who entered the CAP as a General Aviation Member, transitioned to regular membership and the grade of captain, and wore colonel all in about five to six years. That wing excelled under his leadership, so I would also hope that we as an organization would make better use of such an indivdual -- especially someone with an A&P license.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 03:36:47 AM
As to the value of "that which is given vs. that which is earned", that is simply common sense.

Just because someone put their efforts into something that's not the CAP PD program doesn't mean it isn't earned.  Have you looked at what it takes to become a CFI?  Are you willing to tell those people they haven't "earned" something?  Want to say the same to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel...he didn't earn his rank...you go right ahead, I won't.

If you ask me, going back to the subject of the thread..."Lets make all CAP senior members follow the same program", and I say "Hell No".  This mania with some people to standardize everything, make everyone do the same thing, make sure that nobody can advance beyond them, baffles me.  There are many routes to success.  Different people contribute different skills to CAP, and we should find ways to recognize those contributions. 

So, if we don't have to justify the need for a change, I ask:  Why should PD be the only route to advancement?  Why shouldn't we base rank solely on achievements within our core mission areas, not based on whether you've sat through Death-By-PowerPoint-Course-X?

Quote from: JeffDG on January 26, 2012, 01:16:32 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 03:36:47 AM
As to the value of "that which is given vs. that which is earned", that is simply common sense.

Just because someone put their efforts into something that's not the CAP PD program doesn't mean it isn't earned.  Have you looked at what it takes to become a CFI?  Are you willing to tell those people they haven't "earned" something?  Want to say the same to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel...he didn't earn his rank...you go right ahead, I won't.

Of course he earned "something" - his CFI, and he gets a nice certificate and the ability to teach people how to fly airplanes.
Irrelevant in CAP unless he provide those skills to CAP in exchange for the "welcome gift of railroad tracks".  Send him the bars with his ID card and it's given, wait until he's completed his Form-5, has flown some O-rides, and taught some AE, and he's earned it.

I'm not even going to respond to that silliness with the other example.

We should be rewarding and recognizing accomplishments and contributions to CAP, not just back-filling people "Luv Me Some Me" walls for things they
did years before even knowing about CAP.

Special appointments were available when I became a SM in 1974. While I didn't qualify for this type of advancement, I never felt slighted because others were promoted above me. The problem isn't the existing program, it is how some commanders implement it. When I was a Squardron Commander one of my former cadets wanted to join and become a Captain because he was a Doctor. I told him that he was eligible for it but I wouldn't put him in till I saw him active within the Squadron for at least 6 months. It was a tough conversation as we had become personal friends but that is what a Commander gets paid the big bucks for  ;)

Time for some Commanders to grow a pair and not give away rank to anybody that walks in the door because they have a piece of paper.

Quote from: keystone102 on January 26, 2012, 03:15:44 PMTime for some Commanders to grow a pair and not give away rank to anybody that walks in the door because they have a piece of paper.

I agree 100%.

How about instead of giving them "instant" rank; we take a page out of the cadet program as they deal with jrotc. They have reduced time-in-grade requirements, say 50% of standard promotion.  Military earned their rank and they have to earn ours. We give them a break on TIG because they already have skills that can be readily used with CAP, they still have to learn about us, and do their job.  Other skills are the same deal.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 02:54:01 PMWe should be rewarding and recognizing accomplishments and contributions to CAP, not just back-filling people "Luv Me Some Me" walls for things they
did years before even knowing about CAP.

OK then, why is the Professional Development Death-by-Powerpoint the accomplishments that we should recognize?

Quote from: JeffDG on January 26, 2012, 05:13:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 02:54:01 PMWe should be rewarding and recognizing accomplishments and contributions to CAP, not just back-filling people "Luv Me Some Me" walls for things they
did years before even knowing about CAP.

OK then, why is the Professional Development Death-by-Powerpoint the accomplishments that we should recognize?

First, who said that's what should be recognized?  One example I've made to change the CFI "Welcome Gift" is to actually require they be F5'ed,
fly some O-rides, and / or teach AE classes.  I'd think that an actual appropriate expectation for a CFI, would be that they become a check pilot
before they get the grade, but we're talking baby steps.  Regardless, there doesn't have to be any Powerpoint in there at all.

But a CFI who doesn't fly or involve himself in aviation in CAP is no different than anybody else.  I personally know of members who joined
CAP, got their tracks because they are CFI's, and then their CAP activity never comes near aviation because "it's too much hassle to fly in CAP",
they do "other", which is great, "Thank You", but not deserving being promoted ahead of their peer group.

Second, where are we recognizing "Death by Powerpoint", specifically?

There isn't a single ES qualification, mission rating, or Specialty track that doesn't require hands-on, practical evaluation, objective staff service, and regular participation.  Not one. 

Having SLS/CLC/TLC/UCC be one of the requirements doesn't mean that we're rewarding that specifically.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 05:46:48 PM
There isn't a single ES qualification, mission rating, or Specialty track that doesn't require hands-on, practical evaluation, objective staff service, and regular participation.  Not one. 

Having SLS/CLC/TLC/UCC be one of the requirements doesn't mean that we're rewarding that specifically.

There is nothing about ES qualifications in the current promotion system, advanced or otherwise.

Ignoring the possibility of advance promotion entirely, you can complete all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Program without ever participating in any of the CAPs 3 core missions.  You can do the entire program without ever participating in a SAREX, talking to a cadet, or knowing a thing about Aerospace Education.  That, plus time in grade makes you a light colonel, all without advancing any of CAPs core missions.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 26, 2012, 07:19:03 PMThere is nothing about ES qualifications in the current promotion system, advanced or otherwise.

They are referred to as "Mission Skills Promotions".  See CAPF 2a.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 26, 2012, 07:19:03 PMIgnoring the possibility of advance promotion entirely, you can complete all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Program without ever participating in any of the CAPs 3 core missions.  You can do the entire program without ever participating in a SAREX, talking to a cadet, or knowing a thing about Aerospace Education.  That, plus time in grade makes you a light colonel, all without advancing any of CAPs core missions.

Yes, you could.

However you cannot do those things without still contributing to the organization in a substantive way, and that's the real issue on the table.

Yes you do.  You have to complete a specialty track in order to promote. How do you get to Lt. Col. without that?

That's why they are called support troops.

To anger RM and use a Real Military example.

The Food Services Tech does not do anything to advance the "mission" of the USAF.
The Personell Speical does not do anything to advance the "mission" of the USAF.
The Security Forces cop does do anything to advance the "mission" of the USAF.
The TMO/Supply/comm/Chaplain/services/dorm manger/admin/PAO/Photographer do not advance the "mission" of the USAF.

But they all support is.

In the USAF we all can't be pilots dropping bombs.
We all do our small part to get iron on target.

The same for CAP.

My Deputy Commander for Seniors does not directly teach/lead cadets, she does not do ES, she does not do AE.....but she manages the "office" and makes sure the personel/logistics/transportation/adminstaration/finance/recruiting officers are doing their job.
Most of these officers do not directly do ES/AE/CP.....but they are all valuable members of my squadron and the AE/CP/ES officers would fail in their mission is not for the dedicated support of those working behind the scenes.

I understand the Eclpise's basic heart burn.
Some people have to "work" for their rank.  That is put in their time, go to the classes and be productive members of the squadron for a set of time to get their rank.

And he feels slighted because some other squadron (because I am assuming he does not "give out" advanced rank) lets some CFI be a Captain.....but then never makes that captain actually use his CFI skills for CAP.

As I said before......that is a leadership problem....not a problem with the system.

He feels that his Capt bars are less valuable because they are "given" to someone who has not "earned" them.

Okay....I get it.

All I am asking for...before I get on that band wagon......is to see some concrete numbers.......how would CAP be improved by eliminating advanced promotions vice how CAP will be effected by eliminating advanced promotions.  Then you can make a decision if the proposed change is a good thing or not.

Today....right now.....we have only conjecture.

We have the system that has been in place for at least 40 years.......vice some heart felt assertions that they are a) not needed and b) somehow determental to our missions.  All I ask is show me the numbers.

If getting the numbers is too hard or impossible.....then I would not be above entertaining modifications to the program that allow us to keep the recruiting tool and fix the perceived short falls advanced promotions bring to our officers......such as making them "make up" their PD or loose their rank.

The issue of "well he's a CFI but never flies" is as simple as an adminstrative demotion for failure to perform assigned duties......you are in fact assigning the CFI Capt flying/check flight duties right?

I hate when people try to subsititute adminstration for leadership.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 07:41:23 PMI hate when people try to subsititute adminstration for leadership.

So do I, but when the latter is lacking, the former is the only option.

And let's try to make sure we keep this thread on the right track - there are all sorts of valuable ways anyone can be of service to CAP.  In many
cases we have people who join specifically because they want to do something "other" in their off time.  Far too often we live in the assumption
that people are so passionate about their day jobs that they can't wait to get home and do the same thing for free.

How often do we recruit a CPA, and automatically assume they want to be the Finance Manager?  I know plenty of CPA's that literally hate their jobs,
and have no interest in balancing someone else's job in uniform.

But...

...>if< they join the squadron and are granted a mission-skills advanced promotion based on their being a CPA, that is a agreement
that those skills will be used in that capacity, and if the member is not interested in being the FM, great, no problem.  1 yellow bar for you, and get working.

The same goes across the board.  Lawyers who only want to be GTM's, aren't lawyering up anybody, and don't deserve to walk in a Majors simply because of their JD, etc., rinse repeat.

Yep, we've done a lot of things the same way for 40 years, and for a lot of reasons, that is the root cause of many of our problems.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 26, 2012, 07:34:22 PM
Yes you do.  You have to complete a specialty track in order to promote. How do you get to Lt. Col. without that?

There are several specialty tracks that do not involve our core missions...take 204 as an example.

^ That's support, which serves the organization as a whole.

I'd have no issue with some who hold an HRI serving as the PDO and being granted advanced promotion in the same way as a CFI, after they actually do something.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 07:46:18 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 07:41:23 PMI hate when people try to subsititute adminstration for leadership.

So do I, but when the latter is lacking, the former is the only option.

I disagree.

QuoteAnd let's try to make sure we keep this thread on the right track - there are all sorts of valuable ways anyone can be of service to CAP.  In many cases we have people who join specifically because they want to do something "other" in their off time.  Far too often we live in the assumption that people are so passionate about their day jobs that they can't wait to get home and do the same thing for free.

Yep with you there.

QuoteHow often do we recruit a CPA, and automatically assume they want to be the Finance Manager?  I know plenty of CPA's that literally hate their jobs, and have no interest in balancing someone else's job in uniform.
But...

...>if< they join the squadron and are granted a mission-skills advanced promotion based on their being a CPA, that is a agreement
that those skills will be used in that capacity, and if the member is not interested in being the FM, great, no problem.  1 yellow bar for you, and get working.

Yep...I agree.

QuoteThe same goes across the board.  Lawyers who only want to be GTM's, aren't lawyering up anybody, and don't deserve to walk in a Majors simply because of their JD, etc., rinse repeat.

Yep....agreed.

QuoteYep, we've done a lot of things the same way for 40 years, and for a lot of reasons, that is the root cause of many of our problems.

That is a two way street.  We should not continue to do something that is bad just because "we've always done it this way.  However, just because we have done it a long time does not mean it is bad.   You are asserting that the current system is bad.....and you assert the only fix is to throw out the system.  Okay......once again.....show me.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 08:05:11 PM
^ That's support, which serves the organization as a whole.

I'd have no issue with some who hold an HRI serving as the PDO and being granted advanced promotion in the same way as a CFI, after they actually do something.

Okay.....let's see some sort of definitive defintions of "actually do something".

And what about retired military/NCOs/Former cadets?

I got no problem with a pilot/CPA/Lawyer/Educator...having to wait say six months and get a tech rateing before their advanced promotion kick in.  The CFI will have to get his form 5 and MP rateing.   come up with some rules...and not just a shot gun "do something".

Why not make the special appointments temporary grades while they are doing a job within the training, ex. teacher, CFI while their duty assignment is AE. When they reach the PD requirements their rank would be permanent. If they do not do the assignment for which they received their grade they would revert to the grade based on their PD completion.

Several of us already provided suggestions as to objective "doing something".

I would say a Tech rating in a specialty related to the "special skill".

CFI - Ops, or AE, as an example.

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 26, 2012, 08:25:39 PM
Why not make the special appointments temporary grades while they are doing a job within the training, ex. teacher, CFI while their duty assignment is AE. When they reach the PD requirements their rank would be permanent. If they do not do the assignment for which they received their grade they would revert to the grade based on their PD completion.

That's a good idea - and make an automatic re-evaluation like we have for Lt. Col's today.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
Several of us already provided suggestions as to objective "doing something".

I would say a Tech rating in a specialty related to the "special skill".

CFI - Ops, or AE, as an example.
That's a good idea - and make an automatic re-evaluation like we have for Lt. Col's today.

It's too bad...Flight Ops was tailor made for CFIs!

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 08:35:31 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 26, 2012, 08:25:39 PM
Why not make the special appointments temporary grades while they are doing a job within the training, ex. teacher, CFI while their duty assignment is AE. When they reach the PD requirements their rank would be permanent. If they do not do the assignment for which they received their grade they would revert to the grade based on their PD completion.

That's a good idea - and make an automatic re-evaluation like we have for Lt. Col's today.

That is what I was more or less saying all along!

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 08:35:31 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 26, 2012, 08:25:39 PM
Why not make the special appointments temporary grades while they are doing a job within the training, ex. teacher, CFI while their duty assignment is AE. When they reach the PD requirements their rank would be permanent. If they do not do the assignment for which they received their grade they would revert to the grade based on their PD completion.

That's a good idea - and make an automatic re-evaluation like we have for Lt. Col's today.

That is what I was more or less saying all along!

So, just to summarize:

Make all advance promotions temporary, and subject to periodic re-validation, until such time as the member completes the ordinary requirements for that grade?  Such revalidation would be by the echelon that would normally approve such grade...so a Private Pilot would be validated by the Squadron/CC. a CFI by the Group/CC.  Someone receiving advance promotion to Major would be reevaluated by the Wing/CC and Lt. Col. by the Region/CC?

I would say that's reasonable.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 26, 2012, 08:48:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 08:43:40 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 08:35:31 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 26, 2012, 08:25:39 PM
Why not make the special appointments temporary grades while they are doing a job within the training, ex. teacher, CFI while their duty assignment is AE. When they reach the PD requirements their rank would be permanent. If they do not do the assignment for which they received their grade they would revert to the grade based on their PD completion.

That's a good idea - and make an automatic re-evaluation like we have for Lt. Col's today.

That is what I was more or less saying all along!

So, just to summarize:

Make all advance promotions temporary, and subject to periodic re-validation, until such time as the member completes the ordinary requirements for that grade?  Such revalidation would be by the echelon that would normally approve such grade...so a Private Pilot would be validated by the Squadron/CC. a CFI by the Group/CC.  Someone receiving advance promotion to Major would be reevaluated by the Wing/CC and Lt. Col. by the Region/CC?

Yep.....with a time frame of 1 year per level.....so a Lt Col USAF retiree would have 4 years to complete Level IV.  A Capt CFI would have 2 Years to complete Level II.   A Major AE Phd would have 3 years to complete Level III.

If in the mean time they leave their specialty area...no harm not foul....so long as they complete the PD program within the specified time frame.

End result is....your Lt Col would have the same PD level as any other Lt Col...he just got there in 4 years instead of the 10 years it would normally take.

Personally, I'd leave it up to the appropriate commander if the person is contributing.

Perhaps you've got a Lt. Col. who is contributing a ton to the program, but just doesn't have time for RSC or anything.  The Region/CC can exercise some discretion to keep that appointment active.  So long as he keeps contributing, leave him with the grade.

On the other hand, if you have a Major who took the grade and isn't doing anything with it, the Wing/CC can drop the advanced promotion at the first review.

Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities.

That's kinda why I support commander discretion.  A major would need to have the Wing/CC pull the plug or continue.

Hard and fast rules that constrain command discretion bother me much of the time.  They inhibit inherent flexibility and the capability to adapt to unique and unanticipated circumstances.

Personally, I'd like to see the option for commanders to provide advance promotion to any exceptional members, simply with the concurrence of either the approving authority level (ie. the Group Commander for a Captain) or maybe make it so that it has to go one level higher for this authority.  Get rid of the automatics, and encourage your commanders to utilize the stuff between their ears and exercise command judgement.

My first pass would be "same / same"?  Either you contribute or you don't

How do similar organizations like the NSCC, or USAC handle that?

I'm making an assumption that the CGAux doesn't confer anything to anyone, regardless, right?

Nope, in CG Aux you have to "earn" higher office insignia based on either getting elected to higher and higher office or holding higher and higher staff jobs.  For the most part, anyone holding a relatively high office has probably held elected office at multiple levels though it would be possible to go pretty far by just holding staff jobs. 

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it would hurt recruiting at all to get rid of advanced promotions in CAP -- CG Aux has just about as many members as CAP has senior members and doesn't hand out any of the same perks. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities.

Okay.....I'll buy that.....but by the same token....you would never had recruited him in the first place if you don't let him have his oak leaves.

So we are back to square one.

Pesonally I think the Major would want to keep his oak leaves and maybe put on Lt Col....and so would do what he had to do to keep them.

And let's face it....with PME equivancy....they don't have to do RSC or NSC....the only have to get their tech/senior/master rateing in a specialty and do their required staff time.  Maybe SLS or CLC....but those are just week end classes and is not asking too much.

So....it would be a balance between your need to "equalise" the promotions and my need to keep the recruiting tool.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 11:05:25 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities.

Okay.....I'll buy that.....but by the same token....you would never had recruited him in the first place if you don't let him have his oak leaves.

No, thats your assertion, not mine.  I don't believe that more than a handful of people that ever joined CAP did so because of the advanced promotion. 

However, taking something away from someone is MUCH different than not giving them something in the first place.  I firmly believe that the same guy who was going to join anyway and said, "thats nice" when you gave him CAP equivalent rank to his military rank, would very much care about being demoted. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 11:09:05 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 11:05:25 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities.

Okay.....I'll buy that.....but by the same token....you would never had recruited him in the first place if you don't let him have his oak leaves.

No, thats your assertion, not mine.  I don't believe that more than a handful of people that ever joined CAP did so because of the advanced promotion. 

However, taking something away from someone is MUCH different than not giving them something in the first place.  I firmly believe that the same guy who was going to join anyway and said, "thats nice" when you gave him CAP equivalent rank to his military rank, would very much care about being demoted.

Then you have the motivation for him to do his PD.
Right now the only motivation to do PD is the carrot of "promotion".  Get your Level II and I'll make you a Capt, get Level III and you can be a Major.

If we did not have rank....then almost no one would do CAP PD....IMHO.  And I present the number of Lt Col's with only Level I or Level II as an example of this fact.  They have NO incentive to do the PD....so they don't.

Some will not do their PD and get bent if you try to demote them......okay....so be a leader and manage them.

I go back to my original stance......if you want to make change....you must demonstarte that the current system is not working and that the proposed solution does not create new/worse problems.

That goes for my proposal too.  If the threat of demotion is going to create too much of a hassle....then let's do nothing.

Some keep insinuating that SLS/CLC (etc.) is a checkbox, and completely glossing over the staff time requirements like they were inconsequential, when in fact that staff time is really where the "do something" is happening.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 11:05:25 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Well, that proposal is certainly better than what we have now (assuming we were forced to keep the current system) and would work for a lot of the advanced promotions, but what about former military?  How would they be evaluated on whether they were contributing as expected based on their former rank?  Do you really think CAP is going to bust a former Marine major down to 2nd Lt. for not back-filling the requirements in time?  Human nature would dictate that he is probably going to leave CAP because no matter what you say, that is going to be considered a demotion in the eyes of everyone and reflect upon his character and abilities.

Okay.....I'll buy that.....but by the same token....you would never had recruited him in the first place if you don't let him have his oak leaves.

So we are back to square one.

Pesonally I think the Major would want to keep his oak leaves and maybe put on Lt Col....and so would do what he had to do to keep them.

And let's face it....with PME equivancy....they don't have to do RSC or NSC....the only have to get their tech/senior/master rateing in a specialty and do their required staff time.  Maybe SLS or CLC....but those are just week end classes and is not asking too much.

So....it would be a balance between your need to "equalise" the promotions and my need to keep the recruiting tool.

No one is glossing over staff time.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 26, 2012, 05:11:58 PM
How about instead of giving them "instant" rank; we take a page out of the cadet program as they deal with jrotc. They have reduced time-in-grade requirements, say 50% of standard promotion.  Military earned their rank and they have to earn ours. We give them a break on TIG because they already have skills that can be readily used with CAP, they still have to learn about us, and do their job.  Other skills are the same deal.

No comment to above^

Quote from: lordmonar on January 26, 2012, 11:57:25 PMNo one is glossing over staff time.

Bolding the words doesn't mean you think it's a big deal.  Others have put in the same 1/2 sentence.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 26, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Some keep insinuating that SLS/CLC (etc.) is a checkbox, and completely glossing over the staff time requirements like they were inconsequential, when in fact that staff time is really where the "do something" is happening.

Weeeellll, SLS and CLC are a weekend... maybe 12 hours in class over two days each, with no exit requirement other than the ability to hold your chair down.  And if Maj. Billy Bob appoints his buddy SM Bobby Joe as one of his five assistant ops officers, then that checkbox is covered.  There is no requirement to actually perform in your staff position, just occupy it.

^ and yet...

Despite how seemingly "meaningless" these endeavors are, in many cases, they are insurmountable for these "valued members".

Besides, we can't define the program based on the assumption that a small number of people will abuse the system, they always will, and we'll never
be able to stop all of them.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 07:52:11 PM
I will again repeat the anecdote about the field-grade officer who, when called on something very basic, told a commander that
"I read FARs, not regulations".  Very nice.

That tool still rubs me raw......surprised you remember it.  >:(

^ There are some things you never forget...

(and others you write down to insure you remember...)

^^ Ah...the book of Secrets   ::)

Quote from: PWK-GT on January 28, 2012, 05:35:12 AM
^^ Ah...the book of Secrets   ::)

Found on page 263. There is no answer that would get all members to agree.