Updated CAPR 35-5 released today (11 Aug 14)

[RiverAux]

II) The goal was to start to really change the attitude that promotions are not supposed to be carrots and 'Good job you've done good stuff at this point' but instead 'Hey, we think you are qualified to operate at this next higher level'

Uh, so we've increased requirements to get higher rank, but have no requirement that you have a certain rank to hold a certain position, so what was accomplished? 


It was stated several times that "obtaining Lt. Col. should be hard." Why? 

Shouldn't our goal be to get as many people as possible trained to be able to handle the tasks we want?  Restricting what I suppose we think our best training is to a few dozen people a year doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

Shouldn't we be pushing out the content of NSC to as many possible CAP members as possible rather than trying to get some people in a hot room in AL?

[LSThiker]

If you choose to characterize this in the most negative light possible just to make your argument, so be it.

I characterize this in no different light than when you said these.  So I guess if that is the most negative light possible, so be it:

If Major and Lt Col are off the table for some people, then I would imagine the interest in Senior and Master
are going to wane as well.  As I said before "unintended consequences".

Now it will be "well Captain is it", and those pilots get it for writing a check, so what's the point?"

the last incentive of getting pilots to "kit-up" on PD is gone.  They are already Captains, with no chance
of Major.  Why bother?

So I guess if you want to characterize this change in the most negative light possible, so be it.

The real bottom line is that if CAP concentrated on recruiting, retention and mission, there would be
more then enough people for everyone to do what they "want" relatively speaking. 

Sure.  This is something that commanders from Squadron Level to National Level should be addressing in their own AORs. 

Why on earth should someone who joined CAP to do ground SAR be burdened with running
Logistics the first day they walk in?  Let them look for stuff for several years and then they can consider
different challenges.

No one said burden a new member on their first day with running logistics, nor suggested otherwise. 

As we see here on CT, there are many members, perhaps even a majority who are not involved, nor have an interest in
operations,

If you take CapTalk as a representation of CAP, then your stats are going to be skewed horribly.  The only thing CAPTalk represents is the group of people that participate on it.

The majority of the membership would >not< flock to the ops-only unit.
Most would welcome the full CAP experience

Well I guess if that is true, then the below are false because being these are all part of the CAP experience:

less people interested in being directors of SLS/CLS

the last incentive of getting pilots to "kit-up" on PD is gone

Agreed - that's the carrot,

So if most would welcome the CAP experience, there is no reason why less people are interested in being directors, why pilots are not completing PD, and why there even needs to be a carrot. 

You would be surprised what people "want" to do when given opportunity and expectation, in
an environment where things are fair and rules are followed.

No I will not because I already expect that.  However, to have an environment where things are fair and rules are followed require none of the changes above.  It just requires commanders to follow the rules.

[CAP_truth]

[/quote]

The SM PD was revamped in 1983. So all the GRWs that you see (with a few rare exceptions) are dated from the National Board when it was enacted-1983 to the present (mine was in 1985 as a Captain). Prior to this you had a 5 level program where the GRW was the 4th step. The highest was the National Commanders Citation which required completion of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and carried with it appointment to the grade of Lt Col.
[/quote]


  As I remember it was the Air War College that was needed. But, you had to complete SOS and ACSC first.

[CAP_truth]

Wait till they change the requirements for wing and region commanders to have a bachelors degree before appointments. Then an Associate's degree to be a 2d Lt.

[SARDOC]

Looks like I'll have to blow the Dust off of my EMT card and be reappointed as a Health Services Officer.  I'll make Lieutenant Colonel without doing anymore PD...just time in grade.   

[SARDOC]

Speaking only for myself: I'm happy that you need to take SOS or RSC for a promotion to major. Frankly, I think SOS — yes, the Air Force PME course — should be required for captain. The only snag for CAP members is that you need to have a bachelor's degree to take SOS. But the things SOS teaches are things you need to effectively and intelligently run a unit and to be a good officer. Maybe CAP should develop a course for lieutenants that matches much of SOS.

I don't understand why CAP can't ask for a waiver on the degree requirements for this.

I thought they did.  Air University responded that that the courses they offered were graduate level and that because they required to have a Bachelor's Degree due to their accreditation status with the Commission of Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools they weren't willing to risk their accreditation by granting a waiver.

[Lord of the North]

SARDOC you may want to re-read the regulation.

5-3.c.  Health Service Personnel. Upon successful completion of Level I, unit commanders may initiate a CAPF 2 on health service personnel recommending appointment to an appropriate grade, as outlined below. The member's qualifications will be evaluated by the wing health service program officer, who will provide his or her comments and recommendations to the wing commander prior to approval. (Specific qualifications for medical personnel are outlined in CAPR 160-1.)
(1) Second Lieutenant. Licensed practical or vocational nurse, paramedic or other health technician.
(2) First Lieutenant. Registered nurse, physician assistant or other health professional with a bachelor's or master's degree as outlined in CAPR 160-1.
(3) Captain. Licensed physician, dentist or other health professional with an earned doctorate degree in a health care discipline.
(4) Major. Licensed physician appointed a unit health service program officer in accordance with CAPR 160-1 who has served 1 year time-in-grade as a captain.

I don't see a path to Lt Col here.

[SARDOC]

Now Lt Col costs more of your time, more of your money.    It should be hard to get Lt Col.

Time and Effort...Yes, it should be more difficult.  But, No, it shouldn't cost you more of your money.  If I had the money to just blow $1200.00 for a Grade for which there is no financial recovery...nah I'd blow it on Pilot Lessons.

Being the expensive part I take exception with.  Being in all fairness, I have members of my Wing that are Super Dedicated to this organization and dedicated to the mission...but they barely have enough money to go stay a single night at a hotel never mind going all the way to Maxwell.

I think that if the Civil Air Patrol wanted to limit the numbers...they should make a real honest to God, Promotion system ie. USAF.

Limit the Spots of Captains, Majors and Lieutenant Colonels, with increasing grade and responsibility.  Based on membership forecasts, trending, they can determine the numbers of positions in any given year, each wing gets a percentage of the Quota based on the size of their Wing.

Florida...this year you get 12 Lt Cols, 17 Majors and 28 Captains, Rhode Island...You get  1 Captain.   (numbers may vary for demonstrable purposes only...not actual reflection).  When a National Promotion Board gets to look at the top candidates based on a CAP resume maybe testing or Occupational Specialty (specialty track) and compares to staff vacancies and recommendations or evaluations. 

Oh...you scored higher on a test, but the Lt. Col position we have is the Wing Director of Safety and your Master's rating is in Emergency Services. They might skip over you to someone who has a Masters in safety.  If you have Master Ratings in Multiple in demand specialty tracks you might get an early promote (if your performance is demonstrated by evals and/or recommendation letters.

Grade might actually mean something here.  Serve in that role well for a term, you keep the grade and maybe transfer elsewhere (Special Projects, Region Staff, NHQ)

Just a thought...performance is my point, not the extra money to burn.

[SARDOC]

SARDOC you may want to re-read the regulation.

5-3.c.  Health Service Personnel. Upon successful completion of Level I, unit commanders may initiate a CAPF 2 on health service personnel recommending appointment to an appropriate grade, as outlined below. The member's qualifications will be evaluated by the wing health service program officer, who will provide his or her comments and recommendations to the wing commander prior to approval. (Specific qualifications for medical personnel are outlined in CAPR 160-1.)
(1) Second Lieutenant. Licensed practical or vocational nurse, paramedic or other health technician.
(2) First Lieutenant. Registered nurse, physician assistant or other health professional with a bachelor's or master's degree as outlined in CAPR 160-1.
(3) Captain. Licensed physician, dentist or other health professional with an earned doctorate degree in a health care discipline.
(4) Major. Licensed physician appointed a unit health service program officer in accordance with CAPR 160-1 who has served 1 year time-in-grade as a captain.

I don't see a path to Lt Col here.

Nope, I read just fine.

The section you quoted from CAPR 35-5 is under section 5-3 titled INITIAL APPOINTMENT.  This section only applies to the First entry level grade to which you are appointed.

Look at this section of 35-5

5-2. Training Requirements. Professional personnel must complete Level I prior to
appointment to CAP officer grade. Health Service personnel, professional educators serving as
aerospace education officers are exempt from all other training requirements prescribed for
promotion to additional grades.  

This makes Level 5 not a requirement for Lieutenant Colonel...just Time in Grade

[JeffDG]

If they want Grade to signify authority, it would be incredibly simple...

For Commanders start with the national commander, and each echelon drops one grade, so:

National Commander:  Maj Gen
Region Commander:  Brig Gen
Wing Commander:  Col
Group Commander:  Lt Col
Squadron Commander:  Major
Flight Commander:  Capt

Now, for what I call the "Command Staff" (Vice Commander, Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff at Wing and above), they get one step below the commander:
National C-Staff:  Brig Gen
Region C-Staff:  Col
Wing C-Staff:  Lt Col
Group C-Staff:  Maj
Squadron C-Staff:  Capt
Flight C-Staff:  1st Lt

Senior Staff (those that at Wing are Director of...) get 1 below the C-Staff:
National S-Staff:  Col
Region S-Staff:  Lt Col
Wing S-Staff:  Maj
Group S-Staff:  Capt
Squadron S-Staff:  1st Lt
Flight S-Staff:  2nd Lt

Junior Staff (Rest of the staff), 1 below S-Staff:
National J-Staff:  Lt Col
Region J-Staff:  Maj
Wing J-Staff:  Capt
Group J-Staff:  1st Lt
Squadron J-Staff:  2nd Lt
Flight J-Staff:  SMWOG

Assistants at any level get one grade below the primary...So, the Asst ES Training Officer at Wing gets 1st Lt (ESTO is not Director, so Wing is Capt, Asst is 1 bump down), while the Asst Director of Communications at National get Lt. Col (Senior Staff=Col, 1 bump down).  Establish a Time in Service requirement to make these permanent.

That way, if you see a Lt Col around, you know they've either commanded a Group, been a Wing CV/CS, or served on the senior staff at region...either way, they either hold, or have held, a position of considerable responsibility and/or authority.

Do PD by the ribbons issued up to the GRW.

[THRAWN]

If they want Grade to signify authority, it would be incredibly simple...

For Commanders start with the national commander, and each echelon drops one grade, so:

National Commander:  Maj Gen
Region Commander:  Brig Gen
Wing Commander:  Col
Group Commander:  Lt Col
Squadron Commander:  Major
Flight Commander:  Capt

Now, for what I call the "Command Staff" (Vice Commander, Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff at Wing and above), they get one step below the commander:
National C-Staff:  Brig Gen
Region C-Staff:  Col
Wing C-Staff:  Lt Col
Group C-Staff:  Maj
Squadron C-Staff:  Capt
Flight C-Staff:  1st Lt

Senior Staff (those that at Wing are Director of...) get 1 below the C-Staff:
National S-Staff:  Col
Region S-Staff:  Lt Col
Wing S-Staff:  Maj
Group S-Staff:  Capt
Squadron S-Staff:  1st Lt
Flight S-Staff:  2nd Lt

Junior Staff (Rest of the staff), 1 below S-Staff:
National J-Staff:  Lt Col
Region J-Staff:  Maj
Wing J-Staff:  Capt
Group J-Staff:  1st Lt
Squadron J-Staff:  2nd Lt
Flight J-Staff:  SMWOG

Assistants at any level get one grade below the primary...So, the Asst ES Training Officer at Wing gets 1st Lt (ESTO is not Director, so Wing is Capt, Asst is 1 bump down), while the Asst Director of Communications at National get Lt. Col (Senior Staff=Col, 1 bump down).  Establish a Time in Service requirement to make these permanent.

That way, if you see a Lt Col around, you know they've either commanded a Group, been a Wing CV/CS, or served on the senior staff at region...either way, they either hold, or have held, a position of considerable responsibility and/or authority.

Do PD by the ribbons issued up to the GRW.

This will never work. It's too simple. Might run into some issues with the number of BGs, but other than that, it just makes too much sense to implement.

[LSThiker]

The USAF has always said no to having Region Commanders as Brig Gen. 

[JeffDG]

The USAF has always said no to having Region Commanders as Brig Gen.

OK...the exact details aren't that important, mainly included for illustrative purposes.  But the principle that grade flows from responsibility and authority, either past successful service, or present service, is the overarching principle.

[catrulz]

II) The goal was to start to really change the attitude that promotions are not supposed to be carrots and 'Good job you've done good stuff at this point' but instead 'Hey, we think you are qualified to operate at this next higher level' This would also mean the PD courses could be better tailored to acting at those levels. If you want 'attaboys good job on staff or for this long service' that's what Achievement and up awards are for.

IV) The 'Life isn't fair someone is going to get screwed' argument was considered as well. The original thought was actually to have the reg go through a comment period but have ZERO grand-father time. You have to make a cut somewhere. The idea of 'well just finish the promotion you're working on!' was kicked around too but how long do we let them do that? You can be working on a promotion for years and years. Tracking that would be a nightmare to begin with. We've seen this sort of requirement shift in the cadet program and it was about as harsh as this current change is. If they can adapt and overcome...and possibly have to learn entirely new material.

Right now RSC or equivalent is the requirement for Level IV. It's expensive and long and difficult. Got it...so commanders who want to take care of their people should really look at finding ways of lowering costs. For a 20 person course for 1 week you are looking at a cost of $18,000 (if you include the cost of food/lodging but not transportation) most of which comes out of the pocket of members right now. So get creative in finding ways to find that much money, it's out there.

There are also other courses which are being looked at that could meet the overall objectives of RSC/NSC or perhaps be more specialized (national IG college for example instead of NSC)

At the end of the day there is also this sitting out there:
"CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically. Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience. The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers"

There is a perception by many there are too many field grade officers and that it doesn't mean anything. There are clearly feelings that Maj and Lt Col will now be 'bought' and yes there is quite a bit of work/effort and sacrifice if you want to get to those highest levels now. If you see absolutely no value to PD at all, and don't want to do any beyond the minimum Level I that's fine. You'll remain a 2d Lt in perpetuity (With some noted exceptions which I already addressed.) If you're then not picked up for opportunities because you don't have the training they are looking for, you really will have no one to truly blame but yourself.

Perhaps the perception that promotions are carrots came from the fact that rank and authority were never connected, and really still will not be.  The purpose of rank, until the Wing CC and above were never defined.  Obviously, Wing CC and above were meant through wearing COL or BG MG rank to signify higher status and authority within the corporation.

Part of the problem with everything we are discussing here, is PD.  There was a SM in my RSC class that was illiterate.  Everyone passed RSC, everyone passes SLS and CLC, even if you sleep through the course.  There are many majors that are beloved above because they are yes men and nice guys, that don't know the regulations or cannot find anything in the regulations, know who to go to for assistance.  These guys are always viewed as geniuses from above, because the staff gets it done for them.  Yet, these are the guys that will move up.  Regardless of the promotion criteria, the GOBN will find a way.

If CAP had a meaningful PD program, that actually had to be passed at every level, if CAP defined what rank means with the membership structure, if CAP was a serious enough military (or para-military) organization and SM's had to at least partially learn what we require and C/SrA to know, then I would agree with everything written here.

I'm actually a bigger fan of just doing away with SM rank altogether.  Use the Flight Officer insignia, FO means squadron staff, TFO group staff, SFO Wing staff.  Squadron CC wears Capt, Group CC wears Major, Wing LtCol (yikes get they would never agree to this sacrifice), Region COL, and National of course could remain like it is.  We can still call each other by first name, and not worry about any of this BS.   

There are so many current field grade officers  because anyone who sticks around for 10 years or more will naturally end up in a field grade grade.  It doesn't mean anything, because CAP officers do not have to prove they can write a coherent paper, or brief a group on a topic, or illustrate leadership potential.  You can show up to your weekly meeting (not having shaved) with your coffee cup in your hand, accomplish nothing, but as long as your friendly and don't make waves, you will get where you want to go.

Personally rather than fix CAPR 35-5, maybe someone should fix CAPR 50-17!   All the actual problems illustrated over the last 24hrs stem from Rank below Wing CC has no real purpose (only determines who receives salutes from whom, and who cares about that!), and that PD at the corporate level doesn't actually insure that anyone learns anything.  Squadron CC pulls out a specialty track, guys has 6 months in, yep I think he did this and that, sign, sign, sign.  Even the online tests are open book!

[vento]

Okay, I have stayed quiet on this topic for quite some time but since they have a new reg out I'm going to comment on it a little more directly.

First I will be using a number of references from the Nov 2013 CSAG meeting minutes. The area that starts talking about this is on page 30 and goes back to the original proposal to increase the requirements and the work that was done there.

I can personally guarantee several things about the committee's work as I was on it:

1) Comments and discussion on this board were considered and discussed. I know this because I read concerns and discussions here and brought up some of the points that were made. Not everything you may have liked or wanted was necessarily included, but your comments were read and considered.

2) The committee was not just a group of old wing commanders and above making decisions way above reality or only from big wings etc. We had quite a mix of experience from larger wings to smaller wings and people from small squadrons up to larger squadrons. Committee members were also Major (Me) through Colonel and ranged in age from 27 to older than that. Some had a little bit of previous experience and one was a current active duty USAF officer who was not representing the USAF but does have some experience with the officer side of the house and PD in the USAF.

3) This was not some half-assed zero-research program. The committee spent close to 400 hrs discussing/researching/considering and creating its final report.

So all that being said.

I) Not everything the committee recommended was adopted. This included the elimination of the VAST majority of special promotions retaining only the advanced ones for Lawyers and Chaplains. Additionally the reverting back to highest grade eligible for former Wing/CC and Legislative Liaison squadron commanders is also in the recommendation, but was not adopted. This was to recognize there is some value in having titles of rank with certain positions. You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it really is true.

The advanced grade for military officers being eliminated was discussed but as is pointed out by the CAP-USAF director
" While it's true the Air Force has authority over the CAP grade structure, the introduction of the NCO Corps and the attention  garnered at the Air Staff will compel a standardized approach between officer and NCO promotion opportunities. " Convincing CAP to shed the advanced promotion for military members may not be as great a challenge (as most aren't former military members), convincing the USAF of that? A lot less likely. It was dropped. Sometimes its best to pick your battles and that is one that really isn't worth fighting at this time. Maybe another day...maybe not.


II) The goal was to start to really change the attitude that promotions are not supposed to be carrots and 'Good job you've done good stuff at this point' but instead 'Hey, we think you are qualified to operate at this next higher level' This would also mean the PD courses could be better tailored to acting at those levels. If you want 'attaboys good job on staff or for this long service' that's what Achievement and up awards are for.

III) Take a look at Table 1 in the recommendation of the committee. That's what the goal was and what PD courses could then be tailored to more adequately go after. Heck, they may still be able to be changed to go after those recommendations a bit better. If you see no value in RSC or NSC or PD, or can't articulate the importance of PD then that is an area to work on.

IV) The 'Life isn't fair someone is going to get screwed' argument was considered as well. The original thought was actually to have the reg go through a comment period but have ZERO grand-father time. You have to make a cut somewhere. The idea of 'well just finish the promotion you're working on!' was kicked around too but how long do we let them do that? You can be working on a promotion for years and years. Tracking that would be a nightmare to begin with. We've seen this sort of requirement shift in the cadet program and it was about as harsh as this current change is. If they can adapt and overcome...and possibly have to learn entirely new material.

The committee was fully aware that people are going to get stuck. One of the members specifically had a dog in that fight because they were not yet a Lt Col and still had several years TIG to burn. So it wasn't just a 'ignore the members we don't remember what it was like' type situation. Absolutely this issue was taken into account, it burns, it bites, but anywhere you draw a line SOMEONE is going to get unhappy.

Right now RSC or equivalent is the requirement for Level IV. It's expensive and long and difficult. Got it...so commanders who want to take care of their people should really look at finding ways of lowering costs. For a 20 person course for 1 week you are looking at a cost of $18,000 (if you include the cost of food/lodging but not transportation) most of which comes out of the pocket of members right now. So get creative in finding ways to find that much money, it's out there.

There are also other courses which are being looked at that could meet the overall objectives of RSC/NSC or perhaps be more specialized (national IG college for example instead of NSC)

At the end of the day there is also this sitting out there:
"CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically. Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience. The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers"

There is a perception by many there are too many field grade officers and that it doesn't mean anything. There are clearly feelings that Maj and Lt Col will now be 'bought' and yes there is quite a bit of work/effort and sacrifice if you want to get to those highest levels now. If you see absolutely no value to PD at all, and don't want to do any beyond the minimum Level I that's fine. You'll remain a 2d Lt in perpetuity (With some noted exceptions which I already addressed.) If you're then not picked up for opportunities because you don't have the training they are looking for, you really will have no one to truly blame but yourself.

With no disrespect and I can sense that you are trying help, but I really wish this post didn't exist. It only made things that much worse. After reading it, I felt that either the committee or the decision makers were arrogant or they are totally disconnected with reality as the new reg doesn't solve ANY of the problems you cited as trying to solve. The committee will also be more representative if you included Captains and 1st Lt with over 5 years in the program.

In my neck of woods, a large Navy town, there are way too may Majors and LtCol because they all came from the real military after retirement. Civilians, myself included, with no military experience work very hard at the program doing whatever we can and after 5-7 years of busting our chops we are all 1st Lt or Captains, and we are still the lowery ranked officers in the large group.

Until the committee can level the field for everybody, those of us without special appointments will always be the ordinary people to be overlooked and those with special appointments be seen as somebody with royal blood flowing in their veins.

I don't see how the new reg will change the situation a bit for people with previous military experience or professionals that don't really contribute to the overall program wearing advanced grades. It only demotivates and makes the rest of us feel unworthy of the committee's grand scheme for the greater good. Whatever the excuse or reasoning behind it, the committee and decision makers should consider the perception of it's affected members, at least a little bit. Just remove the grade from everybody and all of us will be that much healthier. The result that I see is that there will be very little change, hard working members will hold even lower grades while higher grades are still given via exceptions.

[AirAux]

The problem is, is the lack of integrity and credibility.  They come out with all the new regulations and attempt to micromanage everything and then secretly realize the program won't work, so they still appoint squadron commanders that may be 2 Lts. with no experience, leadership training, or ability.  But if they placed requirements on commanders, they know they would lose a certain percentage of squadrons and no new squadrons would appear.  Tis a dilemma..

[Storm Chaser]

The problem is, is the lack of integrity and credibility.  They come out with all the new regulations and attempt to micromanage everything and then secretly realize the program won't work, so they still appoint squadron commanders that may be 2 Lts. with no experience, leadership training, or ability.  But if they placed requirements on commanders, they know they would lose a certain percentage of squadrons and no new squadrons would appear.  Tis a dilemma..

They appoint lieutenants as squadron commanders because in many cases no one else is available or wants the job.

In my group, all unit commanders are field grade officers, but one.

[LSThiker]

Perhaps NHQ is going to a similar concept. To do such is not really that difficult.  Master rating is required for Level 4. Change the requirements for master rating to require time on Wing/group staff after the senior level. The Historian track has already done this.  Therefore, the only way to get Major is to have served on Group or Wing Staff.

Of course the problem with this is that it may create a GOBN as only those people will be put on Group + staff.  A lot changes may create a GOBN. Also, a number of people will complain and it will reduce the "want of master rating". Realistically, there really is not a single solution as all of these will have positives and negatives. So the best part is to create the less change with the largest bang. And do it slowly to get people accustomed to the changes.

[Eclipse]

So the best part is to create the less change with the largest bang. And do it slowly to get people accustomed to the changes.

Clearly, because if experience has taught people anything, pulling off a band-aid slowly is much preferred to doing it quickly.

There's nothing that inspires initiative and confidence like piecemeal change stretched out over a prolonged period of time.

[Eclipse]

"CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically."

If this was, in fact, the premise for the working group, then it was doomed from the beginning, because it is a flawed premise. 
It's actually a symptom of the real problem which is:

"Grade is not aligned with responsibility or authority."

The idea that people achieve it "too quickly", whatever that means, is a symptom of the fact that since it means nothing
in the greater context, there is no risk to "promoting the wrong people", so a lot of CCs don't even consider not promoting
a member as an option.