How many speaciatly tracks can you be in at once?

[aviator9417]

I was wondering if I would be able to do something like Comms, and ES or Comms, and it.  Is there a limit of how many you can work on at one time?

[unmlobo]

I am in PDO, Cadet Programs, and Historian.  Others I have seen are all over the place and have multiples.  To be honest the sky is the limit!

[Eclipse]

There is no limit beyond what you and your CC decide is reasonable, though I thought I read somewhere that
there is a practical limit to how many you can be enrolled in as "none" concurrently.

Since they all require some staff service, it's difficult to be legitimately effective in more then a couple at any one time.
I usually suggest members choose "one that serves you, and one that serves CAP".

I know of plenty of members who have 3-5 master ratings (after 10-20 years service).

[EMT-83]

I've seen members with multiple NONE ratings, some many years old. It makes absolutely no sense.

Pick one or two that you can actually complete, then move on from there.

[Eclipse]

I've seen members with multiple NONE ratings, some many years old. It makes absolutely no sense.

I don't get that either - you have to have one "none", which I guess is the equivalence if declaring your major,
in order for SLS credit to post, but beyond that it really doesn't make any difference.

[coudano]

I have 1 master rating (CP) and 2 senior ratings (ES & IT), my current goal is to master up on the 2.
Once that is done, i'm thinking of starting the Aerospace track.

The key, I think, is that I haven't just "box checked the ratings,
I consider myself to be no kidding competent/strong on those areas.

[lordmonar]

I've seen members with multiple NONE ratings, some many years old. It makes absolutely no sense.

I don't get that either - you have to have one "none", which I guess is the equivalence if declaring your major,
in order for SLS credit to post, but beyond that it really doesn't make any difference.

On issue may be that you cannot UN "NONE" a specialty track.

A few years back wing for some reason assigned me into the recruiting and retention specialty track....never wanted it, never did it, have not looked at the CAPP.....but I can't delete it from my list.

I have started some other Specialty Tracks....but got bored with them and they are just sitting there....I may get around to them again someday.

[JeffDG]

I've seen members with multiple NONE ratings, some many years old. It makes absolutely no sense.

I don't get that either - you have to have one "none", which I guess is the equivalence if declaring your major,
in order for SLS credit to post, but beyond that it really doesn't make any difference.

On issue may be that you cannot UN "NONE" a specialty track.

A few years back wing for some reason assigned me into the recruiting and retention specialty track....never wanted it, never did it, have not looked at the CAPP.....but I can't delete it from my list.

I have started some other Specialty Tracks....but got bored with them and they are just sitting there....I may get around to them again someday.

A commander can remove "none".  I pulled my "Flight Operations" track when I became a deputy commander.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Theoretically, you can be in as many as you like.

Realistically, it's far too easy to overextend oneself in CAP as it is - too many speciality tracks can do just that.

[Camas]

On issue may be that you cannot UN "NONE" a specialty track.

]A commander can remove "none".  I pulled my "Flight Operations" track when I became a deputy commander.

A unit PDO should be able to do the same thing as well.

[Private Investigator]

I was wondering if I would be able to do something like Comms, and ES or Comms, and it.  Is there a limit of how many you can work on at one time?

It depends on the Squadron and Squadron Commander. A small Squadron you may have three or four hats and/or a primary and a few assistant slots. A large Squadron you may be just the assistant to the deputy but it is still a specialty. Of course you may have a incompetent Squadron Commander and not be assigned anything for two years until the IG notices it or you complain to the Group Commander   

[UWONGO2]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

I was placed involuntarily in an Administrative Officer position a few weeks prior to an SUI.

We had a person training to be an Admin but hadn't got her Technician rating yet.

We also had changed commanders.

He saw that I have a Master rating in Admin; hence, "Captain, you've got a lot of paper pushing to do in the next few weeks."  He did not lie.

However, I must have done something right, as we had no findings, discrepancies, etc., in my area.

I felt a bit bad for the Admin trainee but when the CC says to jump, you jump.

[PHall]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

I was placed involuntarily in an Administrative Officer position a few weeks prior to an SUI.

We had a person training to be an Admin but hadn't got her Technician rating yet.

We also had changed commanders.

He saw that I have a Master rating in Admin; hence, "Captain, you've got a lot of paper pushing to do in the next few weeks."  He did not lie.

However, I must have done something right, as we had no findings, discrepancies, etc., in my area.

I felt a bit bad for the Admin trainee but when the CC says to jump, you jump.

Did you at least have the Trainee as your assistant so you could give her some OJT?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Did you at least have the Trainee as your assistant so you could give her some OJT?

That's the thing...she wasn't showing up regularly and the CC decided to suspend her from the position at least for the duration of the SUI.

I can see his point, he wanted someone to clean up our files who (hopefully) knew what they were doing.

However, I don't believe I ever saw her again, for whatever reason, which is unfortunate.

Giving her some OJT would have been a valuable experience for both of us, I think...a new experience for her, and to instruct her would be a challenge for someone as inherently shy as I am.

[EMT-83]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

There is no requirement that the person holding the duty position be enrolled in the specialty track. No is a valid answer to the question, and does not warrant a discrepancy on the inspection.

[NC Hokie]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

There is no requirement that the person holding the duty position be enrolled in the specialty track. No is a valid answer to the question, and does not warrant a discrepancy on the inspection.

You're absolutely right, but that's really not a fight worth having if an inspecting officer goes there.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The SUI process might be a contributor to this. The various tabs expect the primary officer for each OPR to be enrolled in the appropriate specialty track but doesn't require any progression. I've had a few folks get themselves enrolled during a SUI so that the discrepancy can be closed right there and then.

There is no requirement that the person holding the duty position be enrolled in the specialty track. No is a valid answer to the question, and does not warrant a discrepancy on the inspection.

Yes and no on the requirement to enroll.

Except for professionals in law or medicine who join specifically to perform these functions, members select specialty tracks based on their personal interests and the unit's need, as determined by the unit commander.

This is referenced in almost every section of the SUI Guide. In the absence of a will or shall in this paragraph and that there is no requirement for a senior member to progress in the Senior Training Program,  I would not think discrepancy based on this alone.

Enroll in the Aerospace Education Specialty Track 215 or have completed it.

Oddly enough the SUI guide references 50-17 but not 20-1 for AEO

CP does not have the Specialty Track question. It asks

Professional Development:  Describe how the senior members who lead and oversee the Cadet Program have acquired the expertise necessary to manage and direct all Cadet Program functions for the unit? Reference: CAPR 20-1 page 34 and CAPP 216 para 8.1

In the current 20-1 page 34 is AE (see above). But R 20-1 and P 216 and R 52-16 have no requirement for enrollment for the other CP positions.

Comm section references CAPP 214 but no requirement there.

PD references CAPP 204 but no requirement there!!!  I would likely include something in the PD section about lack of track assignments.

A lot of the Mission Support section and Safety reference their respective pamphlets but I found no requirement to enroll.

I don't claim this research is complete. CAP sometimes tucks requirements in regs in places you's least expect it.

My take away:
AE must enroll, PD (You over see the Tracks but you're not enrolled??), the rest does not look required.

[JeffDG]

Yes, it's a question that the inspector asks, but "No, not enrolled" is a valid answer.  If an inspector decides to "fight" you on that, then the inspector does not understand his/her role in the SUI process.  The most that can happen is the inspector writes up an "area of concern", which the commander is free to file in his circular filing bin if he/she wishes.

Now, if you have duty assignments, you must enroll in at least on specialty track, per CAPR 35-1 1-2(b):

b. Additionally, when assigned to an authorized duty position, the member will also enroll in
the appropriate specialty track of the CAP Professional Development Program unless he/she has
already earned the master's rating in that specialty. When a member is assigned to more than one
duty position, he/she will enroll in the specialty track for the primary duty. Training in remaining
specialties is encouraged. Note: For promotion purposes, the highest skill rating earned, in any
specialty, will be considered, regardless of the member's skill level in his or her primary duty.

[lordmonar]

Or you can just use common sense......if you are assigned the position/doing the duty.....you should be enrolled in the specialty track.....even if it is not required.

Sure the regs suck.......but is it worth fighting over?   "is your Admin officer enrolled in the Admin Specality Track?"  "Why no Mr. IG." "Why not?""He's too busy doing other things." "Then why is he assigned as your admin officer?"

Not an argument you are going to intelligently win. 

The IG's job in the SUI process it to make sure we are dong those things we MUST do......and we are doing those things we should do to make us more affective.

The SUI guides come out well in advance of the inspections......so this "requirement" should not be a surprise to anyone.

[Eclipse]

^ Comes back to the same circular rut...

"We don't have enough people to fill all these jobs."

(Variant)

"We don't have enough people to justify all these jobs."

Get more people.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Don't know how I missed the reference in CAPR 35-1 1-2(b).  Though I did say CAP regs put requirements in the strangest places.

All of the Track question in the SUI Guide refer to the person assigned to the duty so this section applies. So if Lt Bagodonuts is assigned 4 positions and is enrolled at least 1 related track then one of the enrolled must be primary. Right? I might suggest that CDC for a composite squadron with other hats should be enrolled in the CP track. "My primary duty assignment is Admin Officer not CDC", would get a laugh from me.

From an IG's perspective it would be nice if the reference in the guide was at least to the correct regulation. 

Part of IG / Inspector training is that in case of conflict between the SUI guide and current regulations is that the regulations win.

[JeffDG]

Part of IG / Inspector training is that in case of conflict between the SUI guide and current regulations is that the regulations win.

As the SUI guide is simply a shorthand for the regs, and the SUI guide itself is not regulatory, that should be obvious.

[Alaric]

^ Comes back to the same circular rut...

"We don't have enough people to fill all these jobs."

(Variant)

"We don't have enough people to justify all these jobs."

Get more people.

Perhaps we also need to look at some of the jobs we have, for instance how many squadrons really need:

ES Officer; ES Training Officer; Disaster Relief Officer; Search and Rescue Officer; Homeland Security Officer

Administration and Personnel (I've said for years that those 2 tracks should be merged)

[Eclipse]

I don't totally disagree, however all units are supposed to need them (i.e. should be active enough to
need the people to do the jobs).

Units hovering at charter minimums may not need them, however units aren't supposed to operate at charter minimums.

[pascocap2002]

I have quite a few specialty track ratings.. I start the rating, do the classes, serve in the capacity, get the badge, and love the job. Then, when I transfer units and am assigned a new job, I do the same.

As for work load.. its not good to hold many positions in one time. What will happen is that you will not have a life outside of CAP and your work and home life will suffer.

Never bite off more than you can chew.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

As for work load.. its not good to hold many positions in one time. What will happen is that you will not have a life outside of CAP and your work and home life will suffer.

Some people in CAP consider that to be a VIRTUE.  I had disagreements in one squadron with the CC who thought one's life should be "all CAP, all the time."

[pascocap2002]

CAP can easily consume your life if you take on too many specialty tracks at once and many new members get sucked into doing so many things that they do not last. I call it the light bulb syndrome (you burn brighter and brighter and then burn out).

This has happened to me and I am sure this has happened to many of you. Even if you love CAP and put a lot into it, if you bite off more than you can chew, then CAP will put a sour taste in your mouth.

Advice to new members, pick something that you enjoy doing. Learn it the CAP way, take the courses and enjoy it. If you feel its not enough, then either add a new specialty or leave your current position and add a new position. Do not let CAP consume your life with taking up 4 different specialty tracks at the same time and actively performing the tasks of those positions.

[arajca]

Also, don't be afraid if your interests change. CAP has many things to offer and as you gain experience and knowledge, you may find different aspects that are more interesting or provide more of the warm fuzzies.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP can easily consume your life if you take on too many specialty tracks at once and many new members get sucked into doing so many things that they do not last. I call it the light bulb syndrome (you burn brighter and brighter and then burn out).

This has happened to me and I am sure this has happened to many of you. Even if you love CAP and put a lot into it, if you bite off more than you can chew, then CAP will put a sour taste in your mouth.

You speak the truth.

However, if you happen to be in a squadron with a CC and general squadron mindset that is all CAP, all the time, and you are not of that mindset...it is not hard to see who gets promoted, decorated and generally gets "warm fuzzies," and who does not.

I have experienced the mindset of "you had better be at death's door if you are going to miss a squadron meeting" and "you had better already be dead and buried if you are not going to attend every special activity the unit has planned."  It is not a good feeling.

As I have stated before, I tend to be a behind-the-scenes "worker bee" type that would be much better off as a warrant officer than as a "commissioned" (I know we are not commissioned, but I use the word solely for illustrative purposes) officer.

If any of you are familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality type, I tend strongly toward the ISFJ.

http://www.personalitypage.com/ISFJ.html

CAP has all kinds of people and personalities, of course, but I have found that the ones who do overextend themselves and "live" CAP (as in multiple jobs and/or speciality tracks) are the ones who get recognition.

[Eclipse]

CAP has all kinds of people and personalities, of course, but I have found that the ones who do overextend themselves and "live" CAP (as in multiple jobs and/or specialty tracks) are the ones who get recognition.

Of course they do, they are the workhorses of CAP, making and allowing for the organization to remain running while people
less involved come and go. It's not fair for you, or anyone else, to define "overextend".

With so many ways to serve in CAP, there's no reason to be connected to an activity or unit that
make you sad or feel undervalued.

There isn't an echelon or activity that can't use help, and just about everything Group and above is
going to be mostly virtual.

That doesn't mean every place you contact is going to welcome you with open arms, people are people
after all, but there's plenty of places to look.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

What I said was not meant to be a value judgement.

Perhaps a better term than "overextend" would be "those with the resources, wherewithal, time and treasure."

[Storm Chaser]

CAP has all kinds of people and personalities, of course, but I have found that the ones who do overextend themselves and "live" CAP (as in multiple jobs and/or specialty tracks) are the ones who get recognition.

Of course they do, they are the workhorses of CAP, making and allowing for the organization to remain running while people
less involved come and go. It's not fair for you, or anyone else, to define "overextend".

Exactly! Agree 100%. I don't think everyone needs to spend every free minute of his/her life doing CAP work. But those that go the extra mile should definitely be recognized beyond those members that are less involved or do the bare minimum. That's especially true when it comes to promotions. Field grades, in particular, should be reserved for leaders and managers, not worker bees.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So...are the "worker bees" worthy of any recognition?

Any at all?

A lot of us do a lot more than the "bare minimum"...we just do not necessarily advertise it as well.

[pascocap2002]

So...are the "worker bees" worthy of any recognition?

Any at all?

A lot of us do a lot more than the "bare minimum"...we just do not necessarily advertise it as well.

Yes you are worthy of decorations and promotions! You need to be recognized for your contributions to CAP and for all the hard work you do.

[Storm Chaser]

So...are the "worker bees" worthy of any recognition?

Any at all?

Absolutely!

A lot of us do a lot more than the "bare minimum"...we just do not necessarily advertise it as well.

Good work doesn't need to be advertised.

I guess where we may disagree is in what constitutes appropriate recognition. Grades should denote level of responsibility and promotions should indicate potential for increased responsibility. In addition, CAPR 35-5 states that in order for a member to be promoted, he/she must be "performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended." (emphasis mine) Doing good work, while worthy of recognition, should not be the sole criteria used to determine whether an individual should be promoted or not.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

All right, then, riddle me this, Batman.

If someone is performing in an exemplary manner in a speciality track that is not one of the "glamour tracks" (like Aircrew, Incident Commander, Ground Team, STAN/EVAL), or one that emphasises community involvement (like doing Aerospace Education in schools, Public Affairs), in a track that doesn't necessarily come with a lot of public accolades, like Personnel Officer, Finance Officer, Historian, or Administration, are they worthy of promotion beyond company grade?

If not...all the more logical reason for CAP to have a warrant officer system.

At one time, when I was younger, single and in better health, I could devote a lot more time to CAP.

Now I am older, married (with a wife battling cancer) and not in as good of health as I once was.  I also devote quite a bit of time to my church as a lay liturgist.

Do not misconstrue.  I am in awe of PAO's who are able to be diplomatic and stick with the facts when dealing with the media, and advertising CAP in general.  As someone who is mathematically stupid challenged, I am amazed at Finance Officers and their abilities.

In fact, there is not a job within the Civil Air Patrol that I do not respect...but, let us face facts, some jobs are more "public" than others, and those are the ones that get more recognition.

[Storm Chaser]

If someone is performing in an exemplary manner in a speciality track that is not one of the "glamour tracks" (like Aircrew, Incident Commander, Ground Team, STAN/EVAL)

First of all, other than Stan/Eval, these are not specialty tracks; they are Ops/ES qualifications. Second, Ops/ES qualifications are not required for promotion, unless you are enrolled in an operational-type specialty track (Operations, Emergency Services, etc.).

or one that emphasises community involvement (like doing Aerospace Education in schools, Public Affairs), in a track that doesn't necessarily come with a lot of public accolades, like Personnel Officer, Finance Officer, Historian, or Administration, are they worthy of promotion beyond company grade?

All of these are important positions and members can potentially promote while serving in either one of these. The real question is, should members be promoted to field grades if they lack leadership and/or management skills? Should they be promoted beyond company grades if they haven't assumed greater responsibilities and/or leadership roles within CAP? Grade has nothing to do with "public accolades".

If not...all the more logical reason for CAP to have a warrant officer system.

Perhaps. But since we don't have warrant officer grades, it's a mute point.

In fact, there is not a job within the Civil Air Patrol that I do not respect...but, let us face facts, some jobs are more "public" than others, and those are the ones that get more recognition.

In my opinion, members who volunteer in CAP seeking "public" recognition, are in it for the wrong reasons. Promotions should not be used in this manner.

[aviator9417]

In fact, there is not a job within the Civil Air Patrol that I do not respect...but, let us face facts, some jobs are more "public" than others, and those are the ones that get more recognition.

So the people who are the face of CAP get the good life but the people who they rely on and the people that make CAP function on the support side get the short end of the stick?

You need to take care of all of your people not just the ones who are out in public.  Not everyone in the AF are pilots.  The idea of being a pilot is attractive but if not for the maintenance, comms, IT, logistics, administration, etc.  The pilots job would not be possible.

The same idea applies to CAP without comms, IC, etc who would support the ground teams? or the aircrew?

If you only take care of the people who execute the mission and not the people that support the mission the mission WILL fail.

[Storm Chaser]

^ You're making an assumption that CAP only takes care of certain people with certain specialties. May I remind everyone that our National Commander has a Master Rating in Finance and another one in Personnel.

If someone wants to get promoted to a higher grade, he/she must demonstrate exemplary performance in the current grade and potential for increased responsibility in the next.

[Eclipse]

^ You're making an assumption that CAP only takes care of certain people with certain specialties. May I remind everyone that our National Commander has a Master Rating in Finance and another one in Personnel.

+1 - I know of members who have "toiled in (relative) obscurity" and received national-level awards and been promoted the full clip, because
that (relative) obscurity was in staff and activity roles at all levels of the organization.

Cyborg, those of us who know of your situation may not think it's fair, or that you're caught in changing expectations, but to a certain
extent, if you're serving at a "company" (unit) level, why should you expect to be promoted to a "field" (Group+) or higher level?

I think this dichotomy is one of the ways we do a disservice to our membership and is a big part of why our grades are so watered down.

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.
Far too many commanders factor in the "whys" above the "wheres".  As a CC, I'll have compassion for your personal situation,
and I'm not going to hold it against you, but by the same token, if you can't fulfill the need at the expected level, then someone
else has to.  The ebb and flow of involvement is perfectly acceptable, but there's a baseline of activity that happens every day
to keep the doors open, a baseline that most "weekly" members never see, and many aren't even aware of.  The people
holding up those baseline corners are the ones who will be most "visible" come award and promo time, even if the average
member doesn't actually "see" them.

There is a culture that if you "check the boxes" in CAP, yet sit quietly in the room at a unit level, you can still expect to make it to Level IV and Lt Col.
Now, if you actually follow the way the regs are written, and especially the specialty tracks, you'd see this is nearly impossible even today because
most tracks require a Group+ level of assignment, or participation in large-scale activities in order to complete the Senior and Master.

However historically there has been a lot of winking at those requirements, and because it's at the subjective discretion of the CC, no substantiation
required.

"Well, Frank, to get a Master in ES, you have to have served as an ESO at the Wing or higher..."

"I don't want to do that...but I go to NESA every year and always help with the SARExs.  Those are both Wing or higher."

"Yep, done."

Master in CP, but never been to an encampment?  "She's been a unit CC of a cadet unit for 30 years, who knows more then her?"

Rinse, repeat in the other areas.

This is another area where compromise and retention have actually defeated their own purpose. 

We need to move away from this idea that "everyone can be a Lt Col".  Maybe they can, but should they?

Just like in the real world, people level-out to their abilities and interests.  There's always going to be
nepotism and random opportunity, so that just has to be assumed and left to it s own, but for the average
member, serving admirably at a squadron level, the reasonable expectation should be making Captain
as the pinnacle, and not assuming Major or Lt Col unless they choose to venture out or up.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have a Master in Administration and a Technician in Safety.

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

[Walkman]

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

I see where you're going in your line of thinking. I don't read the other posts in the way you are. Maybe its a matter of personal perspective. I read it as not meaning the there are "glamour" tracks and jobs that get all the glory, but that in order to progress to the higher levels, more activity & leadership is expected. And that activity & leadsership can definitly be "behind the scenes" type of work, as Storm Chaser noted our Gen Carr. It's not the specific track one is in that matters, its what you do with that track that does.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cyborg, those of us who know of your situation may not think it's fair, or that you're caught in changing expectations, but to a certain
extent, if you're serving at a "company" (unit) level, why should you expect to be promoted to a "field" (Group+) or higher level?

I'm not necessarily saying "promotion is it."

If you look at Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy Of Needs," you might see what I mean.

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.

A bit cookie-cutter black-and-white, don't you think?

The people holding up those baseline corners are the ones who will be most "visible" come award and promo time, even if the average member doesn't actually "see" them.

Perhaps that has been your experience in CAP.  It has not been mine.

There is a culture that if you "check the boxes" in CAP, yet sit quietly in the room at a unit level, you can still expect to make it to Level IV and Lt Col.
Now, if you actually follow the way the regs are written, and especially the specialty tracks, you'd see this is nearly impossible even today because
most tracks require a Group+ level of assignment, or participation in large-scale activities in order to complete the Senior and Master.

I never had a "check-the-boxes" mentality...but maybe I was incorrect to hope that if you did your job in an exemplary manner at the level you were serving in at the time, somehow that could be recognised.  Obviously I am incorrect.

Again, I think it comes down to personality typology.

I have some training at the university level in psychology/sociology.  The United States, in particular, is a culture where extraversion is valued and introversion is not.

In that sense, CAP is simply reflecting the broader culture of the society it exists within.

[Storm Chaser]

It's not the specific track one is in that matters, its what you do with that track that does.

Bingo!

I have a Master in Administration and a Technician in Safety.

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

Administration is one of the few specialty tracks that don't require higher headquarters staff assignments. Most others do and perhaps when they finally update CAPP 205 (the current version is from 1996), the new changes will reflect that.

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

[Eclipse]

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.

A bit cookie-cutter black-and-white, don't you think?

Yes, and that's the point - CAP needs a lot more of this.

We're all volunteers. 

If I'm running an activity or a squadron, and you tell me you can't participate at the level I need, it doesn't
really matter "why".  You can't be there.  No harm, no foul, but you can't expect to be appreciated at the
same level or pace with the people who are.

In your case, if you're using that Admin track, or any other abilities, at a level commensurate with Major,
then you should be promoted, if you aren't, well, I don't know what else to say.

I've had more then a few conversations with people who started reducing their CAP involvement, for one
reason or another, right around the same time they finally got LIII or LIV punched.  They
were edge players for a decade, and were clearly not all that involved in the organization beyond
as an occasional distraction.   They weren't promoted, or in some cases not until they ramped back up.

One conversation I had regarding a Lt Col promotion "This person's resume clearly shows a member
who is 'backing off' their involvement.  Why would we promote them?"

Hard to argue that. 

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not necessarily saying "promotion is it."

If you look at Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy Of Needs," you might see what I mean.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

[JeffDG]

Administration is one of the few specialty tracks that don't require higher headquarters staff assignments. Most others do and perhaps when they finally update CAPP 205 (the current version is from 1996), the new changes will reflect that.

Hate to disagree with you, but I thought that didn't sound right, so I just went and looked at the tracks to confirm.

There are 20 different PD tracks you can follow.  Of those, 5 (25%) have a requirement for higher-HQ service for the "Master" level (Finance, IG, Operations, Emergency Services, and Historian).  Two of those (IG and Operations) have higher HQ requirements for "Senior" rating, and only IG has higher HQ requirement for technician (since IGs aren't appointed below Wing level, this makes sense).

Notably absent from the requirements for higher HQ are Command, and lest you think this is just the old tracks that haven't updated to this, the CP track that was released earlier this week has no such requirement.

[Storm Chaser]

Hate to disagree with you, but I thought that didn't sound right, so I just went and looked at the tracks to confirm.

There are 20 different PD tracks you can follow.  Of those, 5 (25%) have a requirement for higher-HQ service for the "Master" level (Finance, IG, Operations, Emergency Services, and Historian).  Two of those (IG and Operations) have higher HQ requirements for "Senior" rating, and only IG has higher HQ requirement for technician (since IGs aren't appointed below Wing level, this makes sense).

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

[Eclipse]

the CP track that was released earlier this week has no such requirement.

Master requires a "leadership role" in a Group or higher level activity with a 40+ hour curriculum.
That's essentially being a key staffer for an encampment or NCSA.

The previous rev has similar requirements at the Senior level.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

That sounds a bit like the "all CAP, all the time" I referenced earlier.

And how many typical "leaders" do you know who weren't extraverted to some degree?  Ronald Reagan sure would not have been "The Great Communicator" if he would have been an introvert.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

None taken, because it does not depend on gold bottlecaps.

I suppose the gist of what I am getting at is recognition in general for what one does, and in CAP, outside of promotions/chest candy, what else do we have?

I have seen too many cases in both the workplace and CAP of glad-handing, politicking and outright brown-nosing to "climb the ladder."

I am simply not made of that.

I would be a lousy politician, because my attitude would be more "I would like you to vote for me, but if not, that is your choice."

Nor would I be good in sales: "I would like you to buy this widget, but I am not going to force it down your throat."

[Storm Chaser]

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

That sounds a bit like the "all CAP, all the time" I referenced earlier.

Not at all. No one is expecting you to put CAP before everything else. But as Eclipse explained so well earlier, you can't expect to be "recognized" at the same level than those who are going above and beyond in the organization.

And how many typical "leaders" do you know who weren't extraverted to some degree?  Ronald Reagan sure would not have been "The Great Communicator" if he would have been an introvert.

And your point is? Who would want a president who wasn't a leader? I wouldn't. Leaders need to be "outgoing" to a degree because they need to lead, motivate and influence people to accomplish the mission.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

None taken, because it does not depend on gold bottlecaps.

I suppose the gist of what I am getting at is recognition in general for what one does, and in CAP, outside of promotions/chest candy, what else do we have?

How about the satisfaction that what you do in CAP makes a difference. There are many types of non-profit and volunteer organizations and they don't all have grades and/or uniform awards and insignias. If you're in it for the "promotions/chest candy", then you're in it for the wrong reasons.

I have seen too many cases in both the workplace and CAP of glad-handing, politicking and outright brown-nosing to "climb the ladder."

I am simply not made of that.

I've also seen many members "climb the ladder" because of hard work, dedication, professionalism, experience, education/training, leadership qualities, among others. Those are the kind of members we need promoted.

I would be a lousy politician, because my attitude would be more "I would like you to vote for me, but if not, that is your choice."

Yes, it is. And maybe I prefer to vote for someone I feel can make a difference. YMMV.

Nor would I be good in sales: "I would like you to buy this widget, but I am not going to force it down your throat."

A good sales person doesn't need to "force" anything "down" anyone's "throat". That said, a lousy sales person shouldn't make excuses because he/she is not good at sales. The same goes for leaders. We don't need excuses in CAP; we need results.

I think the grade system in CAP is a bit misguided as it's used as a form of recognition for progression in the program instead of an indication of leadership and/or level of responsibility. We forget that there are other effective ways to recognize the hard work and dedication of our members.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A good sales person doesn't need to "force" anything "down" anyone's "throat". That said, a lousy sales person shouldn't make excuses because he/she is not good at sales.

I do not make excuses.  I fully own up to the fact that if I had to be a sales person, I would not do well at all.

We don't need excuses in CAP; we need results.

Is it an "excuse" if you were to own up to a fact that your personality may not be suited to a particular career field/line of work/CAP speciality track?

It somewhat brings this to mind:

I think the grade system in CAP is a bit misguided as it's used as a form of recognition for progression in the program instead of an indication of leadership and/or level of responsibility. We forget that there are other effective ways to recognize the hard work and dedication of our members.

Now THAT I can agree with 100%.  Do you have any suggestions?