achievement award

[coudano]

have you guys ever seen a certificate for the achievement award,
like the one given for the other similar awards (commander's commendation)

I have only seen a couple of achievement awards given, and I don't think they had certificates...

[Pylon]

They exist.


Evidence:

[Huey Driver]

EDIT: And Pylon beat me.

[coudano]

is that the 'certificate of achievement' from commander's corner?

[SarDragon]

I think so.

[Eclipse]

My wing DA always kept a stock and they have the wide format printer.

I think they have to be ordered by wing or higher.

[SarDragon]

They used to be on the online Form 8, but I  no longer have access to be able to check.

[ßτε]

CAPC 13 Level One Certificate of Achievement is used when a member completes Level I.

CAPC 18 Achievement Award (available at the Region/Wing/Group levels) is the used for the Achievement Award as described in CAPR 39-3.

Each is available to those with appropriate permissions in the CAP Materials application (formerly online CAPF 8).

[Private Investigator]

I believe the Achievement Award came out in 2009. I read about it back then and a week later I saw people wearing them already. But going to other Squadrons in the past month a lot of them still do not know anything about it.

[James Shaw]

is that the 'certificate of achievement' from commander's corner?

The Certificate of Achievement is a local certificate that does not require group approval, it is similar to the Certificate of Appreciation.

The Achievement Award is different in that it requires atleast group level approval (if you dont have groups that Wing CC) and a form 120 to be filled out and approved.

[JeffDG]

I believe the Achievement Award came out in 2009. I read about it back then and a week later I saw people wearing them already. But going to other Squadrons in the past month a lot of them still do not know anything about it.

I just wrote up some folks for this Achievement Awards last month, and yes, we had certificates for presentation and everything.

They're a great award...approved by the Group/CC, so you can recognize people more quickly than something that goes to Wing.  IMHO they should be more common, just need to let people know about them, I guess.

[davedove]

I believe the Achievement Award came out in 2009. I read about it back then and a week later I saw people wearing them already. But going to other Squadrons in the past month a lot of them still do not know anything about it.

I just wrote up some folks for this Achievement Awards last month, and yes, we had certificates for presentation and everything.

They're a great award...approved by the Group/CC, so you can recognize people more quickly than something that goes to Wing.  IMHO they should be more common, just need to let people know about them, I guess.

Yeah, this was a good new award for squadron level.  We're given out some at our squadron.

[James Shaw]

[Yeah, this was a good new award for squadron level.  We're given out some at our squadron.

I think this is one of the better ones to use because it allows for faster response, which allows faster recognition closer to the event that triggered the award.

[Pylon]

I think this is one of the better ones to use because it allows for faster response, which allows faster recognition closer to the event that triggered the award.

And it provides good recognition for people who work on great projects or accomplish things for CAP that may not otherwise be considered for CommComm's because the scope of impact is at the squadron level.

[James Shaw]

I think this is one of the better ones to use because it allows for faster response, which allows faster recognition closer to the event that triggered the award.

And it provides good recognition for people who work on great projects or accomplish things for CAP that may not otherwise be considered for CommComm's because the scope of impact is at the squadron level.

Completly agree.  :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[capmaj]

In answer to the original question................ Simply ask your Wing Administrator to send for them from NHQ. I don't believe they are 'downloadable'.

[coudano]

And (ideally) it should increase the prestige of the commander's commendation
as that award should now not be handed out for things that aren't really deserving of it
as had been the case in some times and places in the past

[MIKE]

Agreed, the one flaw I see though is a bottleneck for wings without groups where the Achievement Award gets pushed up to wing with the Commanders Commendations.  Not sure I would push it down to the squadron though, to be handed out like candy by an unscrupulous commander.  Maybe make it so the unit commander has to be at least a Maj for awarding authority... taking cues from the USCG here.
 

[lordmonar]

Agreed, the one flaw I see though is a bottleneck for wings without groups where the Achievement Award gets pushed up to wing with the Commanders Commendations.  Not sure I would push it down to the squadron though, to be handed out like candy by an unscrupulous commander.  Maybe make it so the unit commander has to be at least a Maj for awarding authority... taking cues from the USCG here.

If you don't trust your squadron commanders to use good judgment to award the CAP Acheivement Award.....why are they commanders?

[MIKE]

I don't trust that wing will award it either... that's the problem.  It either gets handed out like candy, or you don't get nutt'n.

[lordmonar]

I don't trust that wing will award it either... that's the problem.  It either gets handed out like candy, or you don't get nutt'n.

Okay....what's wrong with candy?

If the tool is intended to increase the feel good of the members....here's an offical pat on the back......then what's the problem.
If the tool is intended to increase members doing something you want....everyone who is on the Encampment staff gets a CAP Acheivment......again, what's the problem?

A tool is a tool.....it can be used effectively or misused....or not used at all.

[Eclipse]

It's also been used as a "consolation gift" for Commanders who can't be bothered to submit the appropriate dec - and then the Group CC is
pressured to "just sign it" because they have more direct contact with their unit cc's then the Wing cc does.

[lordmonar]

Are we done with the OP's topic.....because I would like to discuss this further....anyone want to start a new thread?

[Eclipse]

...everyone who is on the Encampment staff gets a CAP Acheivment...

Two things from your example.

Encampment staff already get a decoration - the encampment ribbon, and an encampment is always a wing-level activity, so the Achievement is inappropriate in scale.

Also, when something becomes too easy to attain, it loses its value.

[lordmonar]

...everyone who is on the Encampment staff gets a CAP Acheivment...

Two things from your example.

Encampment staff already get a decoration - the encampment ribbon, and an encampment is always a wing-level activity, so the Achievement is inappropriate in scale.

Also, when something becomes too easy to attain, it loses its value.

Yes and no...about the scale thing.  Just because you are a wing staffer does not mean the only award you can get is a Commendation.

To use the AD USAF thought process......the awards are tied into rank.  If you do Airman work....no matter what level you are assigned...then you get a Acheivment.  If you do NCO work you get a Commendation if you do SNCO work then you get an MSM.

It does not matter what level your scope of work may entail....i.e. an Airman working in the Pentagon is still only doing airman level work....even if the project may affect the entire USAF.

Granted.....an Airman may sometimes do NCO level work and a NCO may do SNCO work.....and it is more likely for that to happen if you are assigned at higher level......but it happens at lower levels too.

And yes everyone one who goes to encampment gets the encampment ribbon......that show completetion......so you loose the ability to show those who did more than the average member (all those who just went to encampment) if you simply limit it to the encampment ribbon.

So....as a policy...everyone who is on staff will get an Acheivement and maybe the Top 3-4 leaders will get a Commendation.  Because your Encampment Director is definatley doing wing level high ranking level work...but the guys working the admin section or doing comm are doing "airman" level work.

And of course.......just because the member was on staff does not automatically garantee an Acheivment Award.  You are expected to work for it....and if you cause problems or are just not up to snuff....but don't actaully cross that line of getting asked to leave....you won't get one.

Like I said.....policies and principles are there as a tool to be used....as necessary.

As for losing it's value.....are you suggesting that encampment staff is easy?  Anyone who gives up a week for CAP to help run an encampment is already above and beyond his peers (all those other CAP members who did not even volunteer). 

[Eclipse]

As for losing it's value.....are you suggesting that encampment staff is easy?  Anyone who gives up a week for CAP to help run an encampment is already above and beyond his peers (all those other CAP members who did not even volunteer).

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean their performance is necessarily worthy of a decoration.  The precedent in my wing has been 3-years on staff
garners a comm-comm.

[capmaj]

There is at least one Wing that gives their Encampment Cadet Commander a MSM or ESM just for serving. Yet a Senior who serves as the Deputy Commander or Exec at the same Encampment might get a Commanders Comm.

Strange.

[lordmonar]

As for losing it's value.....are you suggesting that encampment staff is easy?  Anyone who gives up a week for CAP to help run an encampment is already above and beyond his peers (all those other CAP members who did not even volunteer).

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean their performance is necessarily worthy of a decoration.  The precedent in my wing has been 3-years on staff
garners a comm-comm.

Okay....that's for service....what about for acheivement?  All awards are either given for service (a sustained period of time) or acheivmenent....for a specific event/act/short period of service.   

I agree with your wing to say 3 years is a good working range for a service decoration.....but then you are ignoring the work of those who work hard a a specific event.  Your encampment staff leaders...work hard for up to six months getting it ready to do.  You are ignoring a big segment of the people who are making the program work.  It costs nothing.  It costs nothing.  And IMHO it does not diminish the value of the award to your wing staffers.  If they care about that sort of thing then maybe next year they will volunteer to staff the encampment.

See.  That's how the system is supposed to work.

You ask people to do a job and then you reward them with the right amount of candy.  If the reward is too small for the amount of work involved....then your system does not do what it is intended to do.

[James Shaw]

You ask people to do a job and then you reward them with the right amount of candy.  If the reward is too small for the amount of work involved....then your system does not do what it is intended to do.

Is this a big miss that can be addressed from a local level or a National focus?

[Eclipse]

You ask people to do a job and then you reward them with the right amount of candy.  If the reward is too small for the amount of work involved....then your system does not do what it is intended to do.

Is this a big miss that can be addressed from a local level or a National focus?

The only way NHQ could help this would be with better, more consistent guidance on how and when to approve these decorations.
We have wings where members gets decs so often they've stopped updating their racks, and others where nothing short of
saving the President's life would get you a Certificate of Appreciation.

We're a national organization and it should be somewhat consistent.  Heck, it took writ of reg just to clarify the common sense idea that
UC's were not awarded to everyone just for joining a unit.

[lordmonar]

You ask people to do a job and then you reward them with the right amount of candy.  If the reward is too small for the amount of work involved....then your system does not do what it is intended to do.

Is this a big miss that can be addressed from a local level or a National focus?

The only way NHQ could help this would be with better, more consistent guidance on how and when to approve these decorations.
We have wings where members gets decs so often they've stopped updating their racks, and others where nothing short of
saving the President's life would get you a Certificate of Appreciation.

We're a national organization and it should be somewhat consistent.  Heck, it took writ of reg just to clarify the common sense idea that
UC's were not awarded to everyone just for joining a unit.

+1
The USAF does a pretty good job of training their leaders about what and when a decoration is appropriat.  For large operations they set up central boards to make sure the standards are being followed.

CAP seems to just ignore it.

Either local commanders don't know about decorations or they are hit or miss because of uneven application of the no existant standards.

IIWKFAD (If I were king for a day) I would write a pamplet outlineing the guidelines of when someone should be considered for an award and what the standards are for each award.

Standards such as how long should staff service before being considered?
How far do we take the concepts of "Just doing your job" or "doing your job well" or "doing your job well above and beyond".
Since rank in CAP does not really denote span of control or scope of work like it does in the military how do we define those concepts that make real sense......i.e. an opertions officer in a 100 member squadron with a plane, 10 active pilots, 10 active ground teams may be a doing more work then some group or wing operations officers or staffers. 

I would also change some of the rules and names of the decorations to more closely match USAF parlance.

CAP Acheivment Medal (squadron level staff service)
CAP Commendation Medal (instead of the commander's commendation)(Group level staff service)
CAP Meritorius Service Medal (Wing level staff service)
CAP Superiot Service Medal (Regional level staff service)
CAP Distinguished Service Medal (National level staff service)

Eliminate the Stars form the CCMedal based on who awarded it.

[Eclipse]

I agree that the Comm Comm should be a lower award - if a "Commander" feels you are worthy of note, then his signature, at whatever level
he's a CC, should be enough.  As it stands today, these things are vetted 1-2 times on top of the initiator.

The scope and initiator is important - take Katrina, we had national presenting decs, and wings, and regions, and units, and sometimes
to the same person, and with no real consistency.  Whatever the highest echelon is that presents the award, that should be the sole initiator.

[JeffDG]

I don't think the awards should be based upon the echelon of service, but more echelon of the activity meriting decoration.

Take the ES side of things for example.  You could be a local squadron guy who gets pulled as IC, OSC or PSC a wing-level or even regional level mission.  You're not on the Region staff, but your service could well meet the criteria for an ESA now (just had one awarded last month as a matter of fact)

[Eclipse]

I don't think the awards should be based upon the echelon of service, but more echelon of the activity meriting decoration.

Agreed, that's what I meant - the scope of whatever you're being decorated for.

[lordmonar]

The scope and initiator is important - take Katrina, we had national presenting decs, and wings, and regions, and units, and sometimes
to the same person, and with no real consistency.  Whatever the highest echelon is that presents the award, that should be the sole initiator.

I disagree that the level of the approver/initatior is important.  It should not matter if your squadron commander saw you doing something good or the National Commander.

The approver is only important to the level of the award....obvoiusly a squadron commander should not approve a national level award....it is outside of his scope....but he could initiate it.  But it the national commander initiates and approves a member for a doing squadron/wing/regional level work they should not be getting a special doo-dad on their ribbon.

I do agree that for special operation then someone at that level takes control of it.  The USAF does this with Iraq and Afganistan....and Kosovo and Bosnia in the past...to make sure that only one award is being give for their operation.

So if a wing commander gets a medal package and it is all about Katrian it would have to be forwarded to Region/National even if it was just an Acheivement medal.

[JeffDG]

So if a wing commander gets a medal package and it is all about Katrian it would have to be forwarded to Region/National even if it was just an Acheivement medal.

I don't think so.

I'm on Wing Staff.  When I submitted people for an achievement award, I submitted to those individual's squadron commanders (or if they were squadron/ccs to group commanders, or other wing staffers, to the Wing/cc) and the approval chain then goes to the Group/cc (or Wing/cc for the Wing staffers).  Just because the person submitting the award is a Wing person doesn't cut the unit and/or group approvals out of the chain.

If Gen. Carr notices someone doing something that merits and Achievement Award, that award should be submitted by Gen. Carr to that individual's unit commander, and approved by the Group commander.

[lordmonar]

I don't think the awards should be based upon the echelon of service, but more echelon of the activity meriting decoration.

Take the ES side of things for example.  You could be a local squadron guy who gets pulled as IC, OSC or PSC a wing-level or even regional level mission.  You're not on the Region staff, but your service could well meet the criteria for an ESA now (just had one awarded last month as a matter of fact)

Absolutely!

In my mind the "level" of service is just a bench mark to start from. 
So if you say "3 yeas as a squadron staffer....gets you a CAP acheivment award" then amount of work you do and the scope and impact of the duty is XX.
If you staff a large SAR that only lasted a week.......but you did the level and quality of work as a squadron staff officer then you should be looking at an acheivement....even if you personally are assigned to Wing or Regional Staff.

Likewise if you are at Regional Staff as some assistant to the assitant deputy deirctor.....then maybe you would only get a Comendation or acheivment...even though our level assignem was region.

The IC for Deepwater Horizon may be up for an Exceptional or Meritorous because of the scope of that operation.

[lordmonar]

So if a wing commander gets a medal package and it is all about Katrian it would have to be forwarded to Region/National even if it was just an Acheivement medal.

I don't think so.

I'm on Wing Staff.  When I submitted people for an achievement award, I submitted to those individual's squadron commanders (or if they were squadron/ccs to group commanders, or other wing staffers, to the Wing/cc) and the approval chain then goes to the Group/cc (or Wing/cc for the Wing staffers).  Just because the person submitting the award is a Wing person doesn't cut the unit and/or group approvals out of the chain.

If Gen. Carr notices someone doing something that merits and Achievement Award, that award should be submitted by Gen. Carr to that individual's unit commander, and approved by the Group commander.

No...you mis-read what I was saying.....it would still go through the chain....but an Acheivement would normally stop at Group for Approval.......but in this case (and operation/campaign) ALL decorations would have to go to the central board no matter initiated them or for what level.

The USAF does not usually do this for acheivment medals....but anything above this ususally has to go the cental board for approval.  That way the can control who is getting what and keep it level.  Otherwise you would have a wing commander who is really impressed by our work in the 'Stan and give you the Bronze Star while another commander disapproves a similar medal because of different standards.

So in a CAP context.....following a Katrina/Fosset Search/Deepwater type operations NHQ would direct all or some decoration be sent to the central board for approval.

[lordmonar]

If Gen. Carr notices someone doing something that merits and Achievement Award, that award should be submitted by Gen. Carr to that individual's unit commander, and approved by the Group commander.

No.

If I'm the wing king...I don't have to ask my group commander to approve anything....I tell him!

[coudano]

So I have proposed before in a different venue, a centralized (i.e. e-services) awards nomination function.
Online CAPF 120.

And a single, national, "awards approval board" (kind of like a CAP personnel center, sort of) to go or no-go award recommendation packages based upon criteria, and formatting (with some more clearly defined criteria .  This board could potentially "reclassify" a recommendation to another award as written, or "kick back" the recommendation to the initiator, for re-submission.  It would also have QC over one member receiving only one decoration per action.

Awards that were given the "go" from this process will be forwarded to the appropriate command chain for simple yes/no approval.  When the appropriate commander approves, an automatic award cite gets generated and sent to the appropriate presenting authority (and shows in a "VMPF" in e-services)



Members of this board should be volunteers perhaps for term of 1 year, perhaps one or two per region, rotating on a staggered basis.  They will do their work collaboratively through an online system of queued awards in a workflow something along the lines of pending / under review / approve-disapprove format&apropo / final disposition (reject with reason, or approve -with or without changes).  Probably good practice for members of the board to recuse themselves of package reviews on members with whom may pose a professional or personal conflict of interest.

[Eclipse]

If Gen. Carr notices someone doing something that merits and Achievement Award, that award should be submitted by Gen. Carr to that individual's unit commander, and approved by the Group commander.

No.

If I'm the wing king...I don't have to ask my group commander to approve anything....I tell him!

Agreed - why would someone at a higher level send something down the chain for approval?

[Eclipse]

coudano's idea is a good one, but the autonomy lost by Wing CC's would probably nix the idea.

[lordmonar]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

Assuming that squadrons would start to reguarly start submitting packages on their people you would end up with a whole bunch of award packages.....too many for one board to handle.

I would agree witht he concept that NHQ put together a central board for REGIONAL submitted packages and parkages for Regional level work....and to establish the guide lines for the lower eschelon boards.

I would agree that awards boards maybe work something like the CAC.

The Chair for the Wing Board sits on the Regional Board, the Chair from Regional sits on the National Board....that way some sense of contitnutiy trickels down to the lower levels.

[Eclipse]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

[coudano]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

If that's truly the ONLY problem, then scale the size of the board to handle the workload.
Easy.
Done.

Putting it anywhere at all other than national only perpetuates the problems we already have.
"PACR is stingy, but MER hands out awards like candy" blah blah blah.
My suggestion is based almost precisely on AFPC.

How many CAPF 120's do you really think get submitted CAP wide annually?
Taking what I "see" in an 'average' wing in one year, and multiplying it times 52...  it's doable.
How many people, and how long, do you think it takes to review a single awards package for content, formatting, and appropriateness for recommended award?

Speaking out of turn on others' behalves, the wing staffers that I know would be GRATEFUL to have this lifted off their shoulders.

[lordmonar]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why? 

[Eclipse]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why?

That removes any bias in either direction.  I've encountered members who were inclined to approve anything in front of them
if they know the guy, and those who received decs themselves and then feel no one rises to their level of effort and won't
approve anything.

[lordmonar]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

If that's truly the ONLY problem, then scale the size of the board to handle the workload.
Easy.
Done.

Putting it anywhere at all other than national only perpetuates the problems we already have.
"PACR is stingy, but MER hands out awards like candy" blah blah blah.
My suggestion is based almost precisely on AFPC.

How many CAPF 120's do you really think get submitted CAP wide annually?
Taking what I "see" in an 'average' wing in one year, and multiplying it times 52...  it's doable.
How many people, and how long, do you think it takes to review a single awards package for content, formatting, and appropriateness for recommended award?

Speaking out of turn on others' behalves, the wing staffers that I know would be GRATEFUL to have this lifted off their shoulders.

Sure you could do that....then we would just have the change the reg to read that only NHQ can approve any award...and they must be boarded by the NHQ Awards Board.
Question:  Do they go directly to the board?  i.e. submitter to board....or would they follow the chain? 

[lordmonar]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why?

That removes any bias in either direction.  I've encountered members who were inclined to approve anything in front of them
if they know the guy, and those who received decs themselves and then feel no one rises to their level of effort and won't
approve anything.

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

[Eclipse]

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

It's not even an integrity issue, necessarily, but everyone has a home team.

[lordmonar]

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

It's not even an integrity issue, necessarily, but everyone has a home team.

It is an integriyt issue.......If I am charged to sit on a board....I am there to do a job......If Member X is from my squadron and his package is not up to snuff....then it is not up to snuff.

I have had this same question about Color Guard competition.  You protect against this happening by haveing a board.....some odd numbe of people so even if I lacked that level of integrity then someone else would catch me up on it.

[coudano]

Sure you could do that....then we would just have the change the reg to read that only NHQ can approve any award...and they must be boarded by the NHQ Awards Board.
Question:  Do they go directly to the board?  i.e. submitter to board....or would they follow the chain?

If you read the proposal...

The 120 submitted from the field goes directly to the board for quality control.

Those that pass the board go to the command chain for yes/no approval or denial.

Commander still final approval on everything.

If it's a 'commanders commendation' (wing) then the Wing Commander is still the approving authority.
But the package first (before the commander ever sees it) has to make it past the national "personnel center" vetting that the package meets formatting standards, and that the citation matches the requested award (and that the member is not being awarded the third award for the same action)


So... for our 'wing commanders commendation'

1.  Online CAPF 120 submitted
2.  National 'personnel center' verifies criteria, formatting, and other QC things as defined
3.  National personnel center could "reject" or even "edit" a package for cited qc reasons ... end process or -
4.  National personnel center could "go ahead" a package for command approval
5.  Member's direct commander (squadron) receives yes/no    if yes,
6.  members next commander (group?) receives yes/no   if yes,
7.  Member's approval authority (wing /cc) receives yes/no  if yes, create award and present it

[Eclipse]

This would also help prevent the "no action" issues when things are lost, submissions could have an
action date with reminders.

The other day they found a 15-year old UC for a unit that doesn't even exist anymore literally stuck behind a file cabinet, still in the
sealed envelope from NHQ.

[coudano]

This would also help prevent the "no action" issues when things are lost, submissions could have an
action date with reminders.

Yes and every action submitted must have a "closed" 'ticket status'
with reason or final disposition
with date submitted, date reviewed, date disposed

nothing ever gets lost or blackholed.


again, just like AFPC.

[Eclipse]

The trending might also indicate areas that need "addressing".  "Wing X has had 150 submissions this year and no approvals..."

One might also presume that with a submission system in place, NHQ would start tracking all decs awarded as well.

[lordmonar]

Again....if it is a National Level Board.....why would a group commander ever disapprove it?  What if the Group Commander disagrees with national board?

Basiclly you are consolidating the authority in a single board with no real need for it go anywhere else.

I am not saying that in and of itself is a bad idea.....just remember the law of unintened consequeses.

[Eclipse]

Well - then that brings it back to your idea that we need to give out more candy.

Anything passed by the board would presumably meet the spec for format, appropriateness, and scale, etc., so the inclination
should be to approve it.

[coudano]

Again....if it is a National Level Board.....why would a group commander ever disapprove it?  What if the Group Commander disagrees with national board?

Basiclly you are consolidating the authority in a single board with no real need for it go anywhere else.

I am not saying that in and of itself is a bad idea.....just remember the law of unintened consequeses.

Even with the system as it is now, the commander shouldn't be approving or disapproving the quality of the package.  The commander should only be approving yes or  no give this member the award.

As noted, 52 (61 actually) separate and distinct 'awards committees' are going to arrive at 61 different opinions on what justifies a commander's commendation vs a meritorious service.  This is designed ONLY to eliminate that (and, well, to help prevent things like black holing and gobn to some extent)

The "npc" isn't giving the person the award or not, they are only quality checking the package and verifying that it meets a certain standard.

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.
Or doesn't...  If there are local considerations that should be applied;  such as: yes, john doe served 14 days flood relief this summer, which matches criteria for a commander's commendation and someone put him in for the award in the proper format, however we (john's local chain of command) know (and it wasn't reported in the awards packet) that he just sat on his butt, ate donuts, and complained about the national awards system the entire time and didnt ACTUALLY contribute to the mission, so... no, we aren't giving him this award.

[Eclipse]

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.

We'd all like that to be true, but we know it's not - there's a whole lot of "other" between the submission and the approval, much related to human nature
and the volunteer paradigm.

[coudano]

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.

We'd all like that to be true, but we know it's not - there's a whole lot of "other" between the submission and the approval, much related to human nature
and the volunteer paradigm.

Yah so that's kind of what i'm trying to address.
I'm trying to consolidate that "other stuff" and give it a much more clear and unified decision/process.
And quite frankly have a one stop shop which can be open to investigation/review.

We don't want commanders to just be able to "stroke of the pen" give candy out to their buddies for no reason whatsoever either... this helps with that too.

[Eclipse]

This would be a good idea for promotions as well, especially above Captain - those tend to sit addressed, and until they are denied officially,
there's really no recourse or clock.

[coudano]

one thing at a time

[davedove]

I personally don't like any idea where "everything" has to go to NHQ, even for review.  That's just adding another level of bureacracy to a system.  I really don't think there is any problem with the current levels of approval.  Now, National should set out clear standards for the different awards, make sure the commanders are educated,  and then trust the commanders.

Will there be some problems of inconsistency between wings?  Sure, but that's a problem with implementation of the system, not the system itself.

[MSG Mac]

With all this talk about sending F120's to National for "Correctness" check. Isn't that the Job of the Personnel Officers at both the initiating end and the the approval echelon. Let's not reinvent a process that isn't broken.

[Eclipse]

With all this talk about sending F120's to National for "Correctness" check. Isn't that the Job of the Personnel Officers at both the initiating end and the the approval echelon. Let's not reinvent a process that isn't broken.

No one says the Personnel Officer shouldn't still prepare them, however there is zero guidance on what should be in them.

Yes, it is. however there is zero guidance on the expectations, paperwork requirements, or even what a dec means (outside 39-3).
Some wings accept a napkin with chicken scratches, some want to full resume for every ribbon.

And there's the issue of round file or ignoring things.

[jeders]

I think that, rather than sending everything to a national QC board, simply implementing an online F120 in eServices would solve most of the problems. Make it in such a way that it walks the user through the process of writing the 120 step by step with examples and checklists so everything is done properly. This will then allow all of the 120s to be tracked and if it turns out that Wing X is handing out higher awards like they're water or that Wing Y only approves 5% of the achievement awards submitted, then we can talk about implementing a national level board.

But if we simply put the process into eServices, it will eliminate the black hole syndrome as there will always be a record of where the award is sitting. Add in a time limit after which the system bumps the approval to the next higher level or sends out hourly reminders or something to keep someone from just sitting on it.

This should also solve the problem of deserving members not being recognized because someone doesn't want to do the paperwork. Some people won't do anything because they aren't sure of the process, but if the process is online with an easy walk-through, then no problem.

[Eclipse]

I'd buy that for a dollar...

[MSG Mac]

With all this talk about sending F120's to National for "Correctness" check. Isn't that the Job of the Personnel Officers at both the initiating end and the the approval echelon. Let's not reinvent a process that isn't broken.

No one says the Personnel Officer shouldn't still prepare them, however there is zero guidance on what should be in them.

Yes, it is. however there is zero guidance on the expectations, paperwork requirements, or even what a dec means (outside 39-3).
Some wings accept a napkin with chicken scratches, some want to full resume for every ribbon.

CAP recognized this problem several years ago. National has a pamphlet CAPP39-3 which walks the initiator through the process, and as you stated CAPR 39-3  defines the scope of the decorations.

The problem is not badly written citations, it's the failure to write the darn things in the first place.

[flyboy53]

Following up on a few of the comments in this thread, I don't believe that a single board at NHQ is the answer. A wing or group board would be more appropriate. Sure some awards require higher headquarters approval, but the further up the chain of command, the further away from the justification of the award. That is why group commander approval of an Achievement Award is a good thing.

But one thing still corrupts the system...politics. Politics inflates awards because people will use their influence to get awards when not merited. I knew the first MSM recipient in the Air Force. He was my PA division chief at Elmendorf AFB in the late 1970s. He was the public affairs officer who was the primary escort for the POWs being returned after the Vietnam War. Then towards the end of my career, I saw them given away like candy to a lot of people I would never have thought would have qualified for the award. CAP does the same thing. That's how a former national commander got his own Silver Medal of Valor. Then, when a cadet commander at an encampment gets a meritorious service award and the appropriate senior staff receive lesser awards, what next is there? Awards need to be an incentive, something that the member strives to achieve, not given out with unequal justification.

Also, I have never found the CAP awards and decorations system as user-friendly -- and I used to be the additional duty unit awards and decorations monitor or NCO for several units I was assigned to during my AF Career. Sure, we have a booklet that explains the mechanics of writing good nominations, but then we have certificates that have to be lettered by hand or processed on a large format printer and there is no organization-wide standard related to award elements or the presentation...which is also the issue about poorly written nominations and citations.

I would make a nomination form similar to what the Air Force does or used to do and train people how to fill in the bullets for justification. I would shrink the certificates to a standard size and then NHQ should develop one professional looking presentation folder to place the certificate, orders and the citation. I would also get away from just certificates and ribbons and make more of the decorations medals....which has been said many times before on this forum and falls on deaf ears because of our status as a civilian auxiliary to the Air Force.

[James Shaw]

I would make a nomination form similar to what the Air Force does or used to do and train people how to fill in the bullets for justification. I would shrink the certificates to a standard size and then NHQ should develop one professional looking presentation folder to place the certificate, orders and the citation. I would also get away from just certificates and ribbons and make more of the decorations medals....which has been said many times before on this forum and falls on deaf ears because of our status as a civilian auxiliary to the Air Force.

1) Maybe they could add this particular skill (filling out and grading 120's) to the Unit Commanders Course?
2) I think that would be a great idea to shrink the certificates to 8 1/2 X 11. I would however leave the SMV, BMV, DSA, and Lifesave at 11 x 14.
3) This has been proppsed several times and your right, it has been voted down.

[Private Investigator]

CAP recognized this problem several years ago. National has a pamphlet CAPP39-3 which walks the initiator through the process, and as you stated CAPR 39-3  defines the scope of the decorations.

The problem is not badly written citations, it's the failure to write the darn things in the first place.

+1

[ColonelJack]

I would also get away from just certificates and ribbons and make more of the decorations medals....which has been said many times before on this forum and falls on deaf ears because of our status as a civilian auxiliary to the Air Force.

3) This has been proppsed several times and your right, it has been voted down.

But why is it voted down?

Jack

[AlphaSigOU]

I would also get away from just certificates and ribbons and make more of the decorations medals....which has been said many times before on this forum and falls on deaf ears because of our status as a civilian auxiliary to the Air Force.

3) This has been proppsed several times and your right, it has been voted down.

But why is it voted down?

Jack

Biggest excuse is that it would cost money for NHQ to pay Vanguard for new full-size dies, followed by 'our medals and awards should be distinctive enough from military decorations."

I've created 8-1/2" x 11" versions of the major CAP decoration certificates, to conform with the Air Force's style. These could be easily made into fill-in forms which would include a brief citation in the format recommended by 'Awards Made Easy'.

[Pylon]

I've created 8-1/2" x 11" versions of the major CAP decoration certificates, to conform with the Air Force's style. These could be easily made into fill-in forms which would include a brief citation in the format recommended by 'Awards Made Easy'.

Would you care to share?  Probably warrants its own thread!

[AlphaSigOU]

I've created 8-1/2" x 11" versions of the major CAP decoration certificates, to conform with the Air Force's style. These could be easily made into fill-in forms which would include a brief citation in the format recommended by 'Awards Made Easy'.

Would you care to share?  Probably warrants its own thread!

But of course! I'll have to wait until this weekend to gen up some PDF examples to post.

[AlphaSigOU]

Here are a couple of examples of 8-1/2 x 11 decoration certificates I created - all they have is just template information. First one is the Unit Citation Award, the next is the Commander's Commendation. The third is a 'recreation' of my Commander's Commendation I earned for service as the Texas Wing Cadet Advisory Council senior member advisor.

These can easily be filled as a template. Being that they're 8-1/2 x 11, they can fit easily into a personnel file. Perhaps one day we can see this as a future e-Services feature? (Don't hold your breath...) NHQ already does it with the Yeager Award in eServices.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME FOR THE WORD DOCUMENT TEMPLATE OR ASK ME TO GENERATE A CERTIFICATE FOR YOU!

Questions, comments, discussions, gripes?