Lets make all CAP senior members follow the same program

[lordmonar]

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.

[RogueLeader]

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

That is the logic of bloggers and malcontents.

Wait, there's a difference?   

I believe bloggers would be a _subset of ^malcontents.

FTFY

Maybe I was talking about Ax Men?

[Eclipse]

I 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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[SarDragon]

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.

[flyboy53]

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.

[JeffDG]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[keystone102]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

I agree 100%.

[RogueLeader]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

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

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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

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

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.

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.

[RogueLeader]

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

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

I 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.

[JeffDG]

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.