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

[LSThiker]

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.

The appropriate term I should have used is "at appropriate pace". 

Regardless, comparing pulling off a Band-Aid to human corporate psychology is a terrible analogy.  Also, the pulling off a Band-Aid is dependent on the person. For me, which has a large amount of hair, yes pulling it off fast is better. However, for my daughter, which has little amount of hair and soft skin, slower is better.  So I guess yes clearly experience has taught us that pulling off a Band-Aid is a variable experience dependent on the person and that no one solution can be used. 

Besides, who said piecemeal?  Having a plan that is communicated to its membership can mitigate what you are describing.

[CAP_truth]

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.

Limiting the number of officers based on a manning table was used many years ago. It did not work. I agree that there are too many field grade officers at squadron level, but they do not want to take staff positions above the unit. Group, wing and region needs to have these jobs filled in order to complete their mission, but no one wants to step up. Some new specialty tracks are now requiring members to serve in these position to achieve their ratings.

[Eclipse]

Great, let's discuss the scientific basis for an analogy understood by everyone.

This is why it takes ten years to reformat a regulation.

Yes, plans mitigate these issues.  This isn't a plan.  This is a piecemeal answer to a flawed premise.

[Eclipse]

Limiting the number of officers based on a manning table was used many years ago. It did not work. I agree that there are too many field grade officers at squadron level, but they do not want to take staff positions above the unit. Group, wing and region needs to have these jobs filled in order to complete their mission, but no one wants to step up. Some new specialty tracks are now requiring members to serve in these position to achieve their ratings.

And that's the issue, which has no solution in the current paradigm.

CAP wants to have grade that is meaningful, but needs people to do the jobs, regardless of grade or training.

Those are not positions which can co-exist in the same dimension without conflict and failure on both sides.
Pick >one< whichever is important to the mission, and take the steps to implement it, along with accepting
the ramifications.

[LSThiker]

Great, let's discuss the scientific basis for an analogy understood by everyone.

This is why it takes ten years to reformat a regulation.

Yes, plans mitigate these issues.  This isn't a plan.  This is a piecemeal answer to a flawed premise.

Even if it understood by everyone, it is a terrible analogy based on a false premise.  So yes. 

[LSThiker]

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.

Since 1964, the program has been 5 levels. From 1964 to 1978, the wilson was Level 4. However, after 1978, it became Level 5 as the National Commander Citation was phased out.  The Wilson list has been renumbered about 3 times.

[Eclipse]

Even if it understood by everyone, it is a terrible analogy based on a false premise.  So yes.

TMFT for the win!

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2009/191/11/fast-versus-slow-bandaid-removal-randomised-trial

"Results: 65 participants were included in the study. The overall mean pain score for fast bandaid removal was 0.92 and for slow bandaid removal was 1.58. This represents a highly significant difference of 0.66 (P < 0.001)."

Conclusion: In young healthy volunteers, fast bandaid removal caused less pain than slow bandaid removal.

[SARDOC]

I know this has been discussed ad Nausem in other threads.  However, if they are worried about too many Field Grade officers they should create a realistic promotion system that doesn't need to be so strongly rigid to the point of being strictly associated with Command Positions.

There are promotion and Professional development options for members that have no desire for Command or Senior Staff.  Bring in Warrant Officer and Enlisted grades.  You can have members that promote automatically up through a Technical Sergeant at Master Sergeant is becomes a little more competitive.  If there is a Specialty that needs specific demonstrable leadership maybe a Warrant Officer is more appropriate.  Those who are in the organization for at least a year can take a Correspondence course pertaining a more in depth look at Regulations, Policies, Missions, Leadership, etc (more substantial than OBC) and can be slotted into a Officer position.

It would be a huge cultural shift for our agency but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. 

[LSThiker]

Even if it understood by everyone, it is a terrible analogy based on a false premise.  So yes.

TMFT for the win!

And FAIL.

You cited a Christmas Offerings Paper.  You do realize what those are correct?

It is tradition for doctors to descend into a state of inane infatuation with esoteric in-jokes, trifling trivia and medical mockery as seasonal silliness reaches its Christmas crescendo. Nowhere is this more evident than the annual hospital Christmas Quiz, an institution perpetuated throughout the anglocentric medical world, or the 'Christmas issues' of the British Medical Journal and the Medical Journal of Australia.

This discussion is over.

[Eclipse]

You cited a Christmas Offerings Paper.  You do realize what those are correct?

Yes, apparently >that< point was missed as well.

[LSThiker]

You cited a Christmas Offerings Paper.  You do realize what those are correct?

Yes, apparently >that< point was missed as well.

Anyway, I have real science to do that won't get published in a Xmas offering paper.

[RiverAux]

Just for fun I checked the stats and in my 45% of Majors don't have Level 4 and 80% of Lt. Cols. don't have Level V.

Now, if we look at the old standards, only 25% of Majors and 25% of Lt. Cols. didn't have Level 4. 

In other words, a very strong majority of field grade officers had grade appropriate with the PD requirements for that grade.  So, the overall problem that this was in part meant to fix was not big.  And, as we know, the only way you can get to field grade without doing PD is through the special promotion system. 

So, what did we do -- make it incredibly harder for the vast majority of CAP members to move up while not changing the special promotion system that is at the root of the problem of people not doing the PD program appropriate to their grade.

I do agree that having that Level V out there without a real reward didn't make much sense.  But instead of messing up the system for most members, why not make Level V a Col?  Fewer than 4% of officers in my Wing have Level V and I don't think it would hurt at all if they were promoted to Col.  I wouldn't mind adding other significant barriers to getting that Col. promotion such as command of a squadron or group and service at Region staff. 

[Eclipse]

Based on the current standard ~23% of the field grade officers in my wing do not have the requisite PD.

Across the board, 1st Lt to Lt Col, about 20% of the officers do not have proper PD.

35% of the Lt Cols have Level 5

Only ~9% of the Majors have level 4, this, I would hazard, is because of the pinch point of RSC.

Here's another idea.  What about establishing a service-based waiver of RSC & NSC?  Heck, double
the TIG, and require a staff posting of "x" for "Y" years as the equivalent for those who can't get there.

As an example, any Operations officer posted for 6 years at the Group Level will have more then the requisite knowledge
attained from RSC, ditto for a Wing or Region assignment and NSC, same goes for a commander at those levels, though I
guess the eagles negate that piece.

Granted, plenty of room for whipping there.

[Garibaldi]

Based on the current standard ~23% of the field grade officers in my wing do not have the requisite PD.

Across the board, 1st Lt to Lt Col, about 20% of the officers do not have proper PD.

35% of the Lt Cols have Level 5

Only ~9% of the Majors have level 4, this, I would hazard, is because of the pinch point of RSC.

Here's another idea.  What about establishing a service-based waiver of RSC & NSC?  Heck, double
the TIG, and require a staff posting of "x" for "Y" years as the equivalent for those who can't get there.

As an example, any Operations officer posted for 6 years at the Group Level will have more then the requisite knowledge
attained from RSC, ditto for a Wing or Region assignment and NSC, same goes for a commander at those levels, though I
guess the eagles negate that piece.

Granted, plenty of room for whipping there.

Why not take it a step further? If you plan to be on, or are appointed to, Wing, Region, or National staff, THEN you  take RSC/NSC. For a Lt Col, who may or may not serve at Wing, just don't make it a requirement. I know a few Lt Cols who have never gotten out of their home unit.

I love the idea of doubling down on TIG requirements to bypass RSC/NSC. I currently don't give a turkey if it takes me another 10 years. It would also cut down on the number of Lt Col coffee-bringers...

Needs a little finessing,  but you've got a million dollar idea.

[Майор Хаткевич]

there are others in the same boat who DO want to go as far as they can.

Either Level 3 is as far as they can go or they pony up the money to go to RSC and NSC.  We force cadets to pony up the money to go encampment for cadet officer and RCLS/COS for C/Lt Col.  Yes, it costs more for seniors and there is more logistics involved.  So the real question, as posed by Ned, how do you lower the cost to attend the programs?

Enroll all level 5 members into trainers for NSC. Locally.

[Storm Chaser]

Why not develop an online version of RSC and NSC? The Air Force have online versions of SOS, ACSC and AWC. This would make the courses available to anyone who wants to take them, regardless of financial considerations.

[Simplex]

Great idea! I'd be among the first to sign up. Let's hope it comes to pass.

[LSThiker]

Enroll all level 5 members into trainers for NSC. Locally.

You already hear about people complaining how worthless SLS and CLC are.  Heck, you already hear people complain about how worthless RSC and NSC in their current forms.  Besides, a point of RSC and NSC is to get members outside of their units and wings and have them interact with other wings and regions (NSC).  So by having it local, you loose a strong point of the programs.  Also, if it is offered locally, is it really a National Staff College with national being the operative word? 

Having an online version would be a great concept.  However, I have a feeling NSC and RSC classes would disappear and the only thing to remain would be the online course unless you impose strong restrictions.  Unlike the USAF, you are not required to pay for SOS, ACSC, and AWC.  So if a member had the opportunity between the physical NSC for $1,200 or the online NSC for $100 (making that number up), how many would really choose the physical form?

Ned, what about having NSC at a National Guard base?  I understand you do not get the USAF instructors, but it would be easier to get base housing and typically cost for facilities is lower.  Or at Alabama State University?  Guess I do not know anything about the area around the college (so maybe a bad idea).

[Shuman 14]

Does this mean that without a Bachelor's degree, you're effectively locked at Major / Level IV now?

No.  The "intended" way to promote is via RSC.  The correspondence schools are / were a "nice to have"
that few members completed regardless of the academic requirements.

If being a major is important enough, members will have to make choices as to where to spend their CAP
time.  Perhaps one year going to RSC and forgoing NESA or a flight academy.

National also needs to ramp up the RSC's and offer more of them so they aren't such a "quest".

Or it's a back door to bring CAP Senior Officers in line with USAF Officer education requirements. 

[Shuman 14]

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.

Most likely because the USAF wants college degrees as part the education requirements for CAP Officers.

That and that they don't want to screw up their education accreditations for their PME courses.