CAP grades

[ZigZag911]

Perhaps rather than keeping people out, we need to focus on getting the "round peg in the round hole"....back when I was a cadet officer the term was 'homogeneous assignment'!

Seriously.....if someone truly wants to volunteer, there ought to be an appropriate role.....for instance, suppose we do make the push for a middle school separate program -- this would seem like a very logical place that would actually NEED the nurturing approach of "Den mother types"!

Now, does everyone need to have a military uniform?
Does everyone need a military rank?

Quite possibly not.

Does everyone need to understand chain of command and commit themselves to working within it?

Absolutely, unless we want chaos.

Maybe we can have a pool of people who are "instructors" as someone described them (perhaps their title could be "Senior Member", since apparently it's become available recently!)...folks who wear a polo shirt or something like that, and serve SOLELY in support roles.

[DNall]

The instructor thing sounds perfectly reasonable, but I really worry it'd be highly divisive between the military types & non-military types. We already get that way too often cause our training isn't up to spec. If you're going to do it then I thnk you have to look to ACA & RAF who do exactly that kind of thing, but have a very intensive selection & training process for their instructor category, and even high for their military graded officers.

[lordmonar]

I understand what you are saying within the scope of idea.  And it might work.

However.

We are not ACA or RAF...we are CAP...we are not even the military.

I know you all hate when people say that...but it is true.

WHY do we need to have higher standars?

So what that RLO's think our officers a joke.  I don't have to lead them and they don't have to follow me...so why should I care?

It is important to remember that we are a service organization.  We serve both the USAF, other federal agencies, our states and our community. (and this is all in our federal charter).

We should demand excellence in our people for the jobs they choose to take on.  We don't have to impress anyone else.  We don't have to prove that we can take on an O-6's job on the battle staff.  We have to prove that we can do the job we said we can do.

I am the best Scanner that I can be.  I am the best CP officer I can be. And that should be all the CAP asks me to be.

Raising the entry standards is not the way to go.  Improving the in house training is where we need to focus our energies.

I get sick and tired that people harp how our officers are not the same standard of USAF officers.  Well so what!  I am not a USAF officer and I don't want to be.  I don't have the time it would take to make me at that level and it would be a waste of time to try...because I will never be called on to work at that level.

And that is the bottom line.

If our jobs required us to be a the same level of USAF Officers....the USAF would give it to RLOs!  And that this the crux of the issue.  We are given the job the USAF does not feel like doing.  It is not because we do it better, it is not because we do it cheaper.  It is because it allows them to do other "more important" missions.

[afgeo4]

 :clap:

[Dragoon]

We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

[ZigZag911]

We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

We've had years of "corporate"  top down direction.

It has led us nowhere....does anyone else remember NASCAR???

Further, when the USAF has tried to pull the reins tighter to get us 'on board', various "corporate" types have invoked Congressional intervention to stop it....whether or not it was actually in our best interest.

Granted that we are not ACA etc, if these other organizations have something that works well, we should adopt it.

What I really find interesting is that Kach, Dnall & I are among those urging review and reform....yet we're being described as hyper-military.....whether we are or not, at least we are proposing concrete ideas.

I'd really like to hear what others think we should do, besides sit back and wait for someone else to solve our problems.

[Dragoon]

We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.

That's the part of the case you haven't made.

1.  Who said there's no choice?  I've yet to hear one decision maker, either CAP, USAF, Board of Governers or Congress, state that CAP is going to become the thing you want it to be.

2. Even if we implement "some of the things we have talked about here" doesn't mean we're going to implement a new CAP grade system, or making CAP standards match USAF standards.  Again, who exactly is driving this paradigm shift?

We need to start with a set of MISSIONS that we should be doing.  Once we agree on that, we work on the changes that are needed to best accomplish those missions.

And the missions we should be doing aren't the ones we WANT to do (like filling in for real USAF Colonels in wartime or strafing Iranians with UAVs), but rather those that the federal government NEEDS us to do.

We need top down direction.

Everybody goes through a phase where they want to turn CAP into a "little USAF."  But truthfully, it's a bad fit.  We've already got a reserve and guard.  We need to be something a bit different - a tool to do USAF stuff that the Active, Reserve and Guard can't (or don't want) to do. 

And they, not us, need to be driving that train.

We've had years of "corporate"  top down direction.

It has led us nowhere....does anyone else remember NASCAR???

Further, when the USAF has tried to pull the reins tighter to get us 'on board', various "corporate" types have invoked Congressional intervention to stop it....whether or not it was actually in our best interest.

Granted that we are not ACA etc, if these other organizations have something that works well, we should adopt it.

What I really find interesting is that Kach, Dnall & I are among those urging review and reform....yet we're being described as hyper-military.....whether we are or not, at least we are proposing concrete ideas.

I'd really like to hear what others think we should do, besides sit back and wait for someone else to solve our problems.

I think we've got two kinds of problems

Internal - things keeping us from performing our existing missions as well as we could.

External - missions we're not doing that we think we should.

Everybody wants to focus on the External, because that's sexy.  We all think how cool it would be to be saluted by a USAF major, or to fly UAVs over Iraq, or carry guns and guard SAC bases.

Instead, no one wants to work in the less sexy, but vitally important area of "how can we improve the way we do business?"  You know, the stuff CAP actually controls.

I've seen this on fair number of forums over the years, and it always ends up the same way - we come across as somewhere between pretenders and dreamers, rather than folks dedicated to doing our missions better.  And none of it ever happens.

There's a TON of stuff we could do internally.  Practical stuff.  Stuff that matters.  Some of which has been discussed here - identifying inactive members.  Changing our PD to provide actual skills vs just "orientations.  Perhaps even demanding meeting attendance (what a thought).

All this requires is  the will to establish minimum standards, and accept the "dues drain" that will occur as ineffective members quit and ineffective units are dechartered.

It won't get us Officer's club cards or UCMJ authority.  It won't make us interchangeable with Real Air Force Officers.  But it will make us a better, more effective auxiliary.

[ZigZag911]

Dragoon:  well said!

[DNall]

I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

[Dragoon]

I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

You avoided my basic question - who exactly is planning on killing us, and why?

Rumors don't cut it. Facts do.j  Please lay 'em out

We will adopt to whatever ICS stuff gets put out.  It's not a big deal.

The "ELT missions will go away" drumbeat has been going on since 2000.  So far, it's kind of a Chicken Little thing - and this particular sky has been falling for some time.  We have to see if the current moratorium doesn't get slipped out a few years because all the new 406 satellites can't get up in time.  And...we have yet to see the problems that the explosion of Personal Locater Beacons cause.  We could end up with even more false alarm chasing then we have now!

Unless there's some one gunning for us (names please), Congress runs on inertia.  Changing things just takes effort and invites complaints from voters.  I don't see them taking action any time soon.

That said, I'm all for improving CAP's professionalism.  But not under the anonymous shadow of Doom and Gloom.

[Dragoon]

I think the big problem is we're just about obselete:

- Our cadet program has good points, but they mostly come with the inclusion of a real world mission. For the most part it is VERY small & the training quality at most units is not close to what you see at an average JROTC unit or ACA - don't get me wrong there's some outstanding units, but that's not the majority.

- AE is what? Does teh AF need to educate the public about the need for airpower to get their budget? I mean we're going to keep it up w/ cadets, but they'e fine for now on the external right?

- ES is the one on the downturn. Changing ELT tech means almost no more non-distress signal missions (>90% of our work) after 2009. Meanwhile, NIMS is out of transition now & all agencies are supposed to comply, including us, or risk federal funds. We don't even do the GES level training for them. If you look at the resource typing, that's the standards for paid crews & dedicated SaR teams. We don't meet that we aren't going to get missions. If we try to meet that then it's going to reqwuire total attention from members in one particular field & not allow for any other CAP duty.

- SaR & DR, that belongs to the states anyway. Why is it better to maintain CAP than to give states our planes & resources to do those jobs for themselves at their cost?

Put all that coming to a crux at the same time and that equals obselete. That means we have to change who we are and what we do, as e have a few times in our history to address a changed world. What we have to do today couldn't be simpler... we have to justify continuing our AF funding. The means finding new ways to serve the AF, but they don't trust us cause the see us as simple volunteers off the street. So, we have to show we ren't volunteers off teh street but rather as near to peers by their standards as we can reasonablly be under teh time & financial constraints we have to work with.

That's your "internal" issues - make leaders internally to fill slots, paired of course with application fo some good management tools. The degree to which we're successful at that is how we EARN the "external" missions we'd like to be doing. I'll openly tell you that there's some jobs we should do to help them out that are anything but sexy.

You avoided my basic question - who exactly is planning on killing us, and why?

Rumors don't cut it. Facts do.  Please lay 'em out

We will adopt to whatever ICS stuff gets put out.  It's not a big deal.

The "ELT missions will go away" drumbeat has been going on since 2000.  So far, it's kind of a Chicken Little thing - and this particular sky has been falling for some time.  We have to see if the current moratorium doesn't get slipped out a few years because all the new 406 satellites can't get up in time.  And...we have yet to see the problems that the explosion of Personal Locater Beacons cause.  We could end up with even more false alarm chasing then we have now!

Unless there's some one gunning for us (names please), Congress runs on inertia.  Changing things just takes effort and invites complaints from voters.  I don't see them taking action any time soon.

That said, I'm all for improving CAP's professionalism.  But not under the anonymous shadow of Doom and Gloom.

[gallagheria]

Yeah, even if Joe Schmoe graduated from high school, at 14 and so would be old enough to graduate from college at 18, he would not be able to do ROTC to geta commission. You must be 17 to enroll in ROTC or to enlist. Then ROTC is minimum 2 years. The Army currently allows ROTC commissions after 2 years at the Military Junior Colleges, so these 2LT's can be USAR 2LT's at 19 or 20. But these are few and far between.

Setting a standard of 21 makes sense because most officers in the military will not be less than 21/22 when they commission.

[SAR-EMT1]

Yeah, even if Joe Schmoe graduated from high school, at 14 and so would be old enough to graduate from college at 18, he would not be able to do ROTC to get commission. You must be 17 to enroll in ROTC or to enlist. Then ROTC is minimum 2 years. The Army currently allows ROTC commissions after 2 years at the Military Junior Colleges, so these 2LT's can be USAR 2LT's at 19 or 20. But these are few and far between.

Setting a standard of 21 makes sense because most officers in the military will not be less than 21/22 when they commission.

Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

[Hawk200]

Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

In the Army you can get a commision with 90 credit hours of college. IIRC, you must have at least an associates. However, you must have a bachelors degree in order to make captain. No bachelors, no captain.

An Alaska Army guard recruiter tried to get me to sign up, as an infantry officer. There are guys that can do that, and they're welcome to it. Not my cup of tea.

Come to think of it, they may still be offering those commisions. If you want to be a butterbar in the Guard, give them a call. And don't forget your snivel gear.

[gallagheria]

Do I understand you correctly, that the Army is now offering Butter-bars  for an Associates degree?

well, the Army has always allowed this. There are five Military Junior Colleges that this can be done at. Then, as noted above, most National Guard units will allow you to do the same. But under normal circumstances, you must get your bachelors before you can go active.

Here is an excerpt i got from one of the sites:

Prerequisite: Three to four years of JROTC or Army Basic Training or the Leader's Training Course.

After commissioning, the 2LT has up to 36 months to complete their bachelor's degree. They must also be an active participant in a National Guard or Reserve unit while completing their bachelor's degree. Contracted ROTC cadets are NON-deployable until after they have earned their bachelor's degree AND have completed their BOLC III course.

Once they have their bachelor's degree, they may elect to go on Active Duty or stay in the National Guard/Reserves. This will be based on what type of contract they signed, the individuals' wishes and the needs of the Army.

[mikeylikey]

I am totally against the Army's early Commissioning Program.  These Officers that come out of the program are NON-DEPLOYABLE.  They are no use for at least TWO years while they are completing their Bachelor degree requirements.  Throw in the fact that they have to attend their Officer BASIC Course which could add on an additional 6 months of uselessness.  They are only taking up space in a reserve slot. I consider non-branch qualified and non-deployable Officers to be a waste of a Commission.  If the Army needs more Officers, then perhaps start offering bonuses like they do for enlisted folks!!

I was a TAC Officer at Fort Knox years ago for the Leaders Training Course (two year entry point into ROTC) and the caliber and quality of those kids that came to my training Company from the military junior colleges were crap.  I hope that they are more mature today as officers than they were as cadets.

On another note, I am also against the National Guard granting a Commission to a person and then allowing that person to finish up degree requirements.  Plus throw in that the National Guard Officer may wait up to 2 years to attend their Branch Officer Course.  All the same time they may become eligible for promotion to First Lieutenant.  What CRAP is that? 

If you don't have a bachelors degree, and there are no open training slots for a new officer, why make that person an officer.  Standards and Requirements are something that should be met!

[gallagheria]

You are correct about application and practicality in general. However, it is not about commissioning per se, but about recruiting. It is a tool to get guys in the service, similar to SMP cadets who are in the National Guard and occupy slots and are paid as E-5's but are also non-deployable because they are contracted cadets technically enlisted in the USAR Control Group (ROTC).

[SAR-EMT1]

Before this argument goes to far, I was just curious, beause I had never heard of such a setup. I was in the AFROTC, but then I was medical'd out. If there was a way for me to go back as an AF officer - be it AD Res or ANG- I'd do it in a heart beat. (If I can get around the medical) But Ive no intention of joining the Army.

[lordmonar]

I am resurecting this thread because we have two threads that touch on this issue.

Okay...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that CAP rank and leadership system is disfunctional because we have a system where "rank" has no meaning and we are not training our officers before they assume higher rank.

Here is my proposal.

Flight Officer Ranks.

Everyone is a flight officer.  FO-1 through FO-5. 

Your rank is based on the level of PD you have completed.

The National CC is a Maj Gen
Vice National is Brig Gen.
Region CCs are Brig Gen
Rgional Vice CC are Col
Wing CCs are Col
Vice Wing CCs are Lt Col
Group CCs are Lt Col
Group Vice CC are Majors
Squadron CCs are Majors
Deputy CCs are Capts.

There are no Lts or NCOs.

We put hard and fast rules about completeing the appropriat level of PD to hold a particular job.

All National Staffers must be Level V
All Regional Staffers must be Level IV
All Wing staffers must be Level III
All Squadron staffers must be Level II

Commanders must have the next higher level of PD than their staff with in one year of appointment or they loose their jobs.

Rank is temporary.....that is when you no longer hold the rank you revert back to being a FO.

Certain ES ratings are awarded certain ranks.
All IC 1 are Col
All IC 2&3 are Lt Cols
Section Cheifs are Majors
Branch Directors are Capt.

They wear the rank so long as the hold the rating AND ARE APPROVED BY THE WING COMMANDER.

This simple system will eliminate 90% of all the heart ache we have with rank.  We can focus on getting the right training for the right level of leadership and stop grousing about rank.

Prior military and advanced degree promotions will be eliminated as an option but we can allow some of the current advanced promotion criteria to allow for a waiver of TIG requirments (but not training/specialty tract completion).

So what say you all?

Who's willing to give up their oak leaves for FO rank and making CAP rank meaningful?

[O-Rex]

Certain ES ratings are awarded certain ranks.
All IC 1 are Col
All IC 2&3 are Lt Cols
Section Cheifs are Majors
Branch Directors are Capt.

In practice, it's really not that far off. . . . .