Thoughts on a Commissioned Officer Corp?

[nesagsar]

following is an example:  Say you have a boat, and in the boat is a Navy LT. JG  and a Chaplain Captain (O-6) and a Doctor Lt. Commander (O-4).  Who is in charge of the boat?  Why the Navy Lt. (O-2).

So be careful when you say that NOAA and PHS officers have authority over RM officers.  You start to get into shades of grey.

Not to mention there is no reason for us to have any authority over the military.  We are the CIVIL Air Patrol after all.
   

On the other hand if they happen to be on land and the chaplain has smallpox guess who is in charge. The gray area goes in every direction.

I dont know every PHS officer, mostly I know the ASPR guys - high speed elite life savers. Legaly and functionaly PHS officers and NOAA officers are REAL OFFICERS. A hell of a lot more real than CAP officers. That is why I made no endorsement for CAP officers to have authority over or even with real officers, my state credential suggestion is just a way to help ES members use thier training just like any other responder. I make the same suggestion to any Boy Scout with a first aid or emergency prep merit badge that I sign off on.

To repcap;
There is no shame in being a local or state resource and at this point there is no way at all that EVERY CAP officer is ready to be a national level responder. Also, PHS and NOAA officers deserve respect.

[PhoenixRisen]

I'm all in favor of our senior members moving to a rank system similar to the USCG AUX...  All ranks are based off positions, and those not in a specific "office" are simply "auxiliarist".  It seems to work for them...

I've always wondered why we have our senior members holding rank that really doesn't mean anything.  Sure, it shows PD levels (and in very few cases, your office - i.e. NAT/CC, Wing/CC), but when you have a Capt in charge of a unit with multiple Maj's and Lt Col's, it gets a bit silly and confusing (especially to a prospective member).

I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.

[Major Carrales]

I'm all in favor of our senior members moving to a rank system similar to the USCG AUX...  All ranks are based off positions, and those not in a specific "office" are simply "auxiliarist".  It seems to work for them...

I've always wondered why we have our senior members holding rank that really doesn't mean anything.  Sure, it shows PD levels (and in very few cases, your office - i.e. NAT/CC, Wing/CC), but when you have a Capt in charge of a unit with multiple Maj's and Lt Col's, it gets a bit silly and confusing (especially to a prospective member).

I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.

Wow...a wrong conclusion to draw from all this.  The rank does have meaning...within the Structure of CAP.  The Rank/Grade is indicative of what you have done.  If you have the Professional Development, a mission related skill or hold an office.

We are in good with the USAF...if not, we would be gone.  I get so tired of people trying to speculate on the CAP/USAF relationship when they have no real way of knowing that and only repeat the same things over and over.

Let me make this clear...if the USAF and CAP realtionship was so bad...we would NOT EXIST.

[Eclipse]

I fully believe that a change towards a rank structure like this is one of the [many] steps needed to get on the right track with the USAF.

Non-concur and I agree with Maj. Carrales.

The only thing the USAF cares about is performance - either we are accomplishing the mission(s) or we aren't. Everything else, everything, is background noise that is considered either a necessary evil in keeping volunteers reasonably happy and working for free,  or part of traditions too ingrained to ever be negotiable.

Grade-based authority in a volunteer environment is meaningless.  Commissions and warrants include responsibility and consequences. The last thing any CAP member needs is responsibility without the practical authority to accomplish his mission because everyone on the team below him is a volunteer with full "..SEEYA!..." options when they aren't happy.

[RiverAux]

Wow...a wrong conclusion to draw from all this.  The rank does have meaning...within the Structure of CAP.  The Rank/Grade is indicative of what you have done.  If you have the Professional Development, a mission related skill or hold an office.

I'm in total agreement here.  In fact, I recently made a statement on a CG Aux board about how at least CAP rank represents completion of certain requirements and training, which while not significant or all that difficult, mean something.  CG Aux rank insignia are potentially entirely meaningless since almost immediately after joining you could possible talk yourself into almost any rank insignia you want as a staff officer and after day 1 in that position, you've got the insignia for life even if you never do the job.  I don't think that is common, but at the extreme that is what it means. 

[Spike]

So, if Commissions were granted, how many Commissioned CAP Officers would move to a unit that is near a military installation?  My bet, MANY.

I have this funny feeling that some in CAP are in CAP for the benefits and salutes, and nothing more. 

Honestly, my Commission gets me no more in CAP than a person without one!

However, my CAC does present me as legitimate when I am doing work for CAP (AFFES Shopping, room reservations, setting up military Flights etc).  I have been "brushed off" when I show my CAP ID Card, and then apologized too when my CAC comes out of my wallet.

[Chappie]

Totally agree with the statements of Maj Carrales and Eclipse.   They are "spot on" .... so let's move this along and file this thread as exhausted wishful thinking.

[RADIOMAN015]

I have this funny feeling that some in CAP are in CAP for the benefits and salutes, and nothing more. 

Honestly, my Commission gets me no more in CAP than a person without one!

However, my CAC does present me as legitimate when I am doing work for CAP (AFFES Shopping, room reservations, setting up military Flights etc).  I have been "brushed off" when I show my CAP ID Card, and then apologized too when my CAC comes out of my wallet.

Totally agree, I NEVER use my CAP ID card (other than for CAP required ES activities), for gaining access or using facilities on any military base.  It is the retired commissioned officer ID card that is used.  It does get a salute from security!!!  I might add that I'm not after salutes and always make it a point to talk with all of the gate security people (unless there's a line of vehicles behind me :angel:), and I think this goes a long way in gaining "respect", and many of them know that I am also a member of the local CAP unit.

Again, these threads seem to bring out the "wanna bee" faction, personality types in CAP.   The focus is CIVIL Air Patrol, and it means you are a "civilian" volunteer who is sometimes performing military (primarily Air Force) assigned duties.  The AF Regulation (AFI 10-2701, especially para 1-3) is very specific about what CAP is, and what you as a member can expect from the military members you come in contact with.  I wouldn't hold my breathe that this will change :angel:   
RM

[MSgt Van]

This is like comparing apples to hand grenades.  Unless you run through OTS or other commissioning program, and raise your hand and swear to defend the constitution, and agree to be bound by the UCMJ, you won't be on par with a military officer. We're NOT the AF's sister service. We're a volunteer organization that is allowed to wear Air Force rank insignia.  There seems to be alot of discussion about what it would take to make our officers "legitimate".  Well, we're not officers; we're senior members of a volunteer organization with ties to the Air Force. And don't toss that "your just an NCO" bull my way. Any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months, without doing much more than showing up (some don't even have to do that regularly).

I love y'all like a brothers, and have a snappy Senior NCO salute for your dedication to CAP, but Jeezuz... enough already.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Received and understood, Master Sergeant.

I don't know what a "commission" would get us that we don't already have.

There is no way I would say "you're just an NCO" to you or any other NCO that has worked for their stripes.  NCO's are the backbone of the military.  Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.

However, it has always bothered me a bit that, as you say, "any dork with a GED can walk in and pin on Lt bars in six months."  I think there should be more to it than that, but I don't have the answer as to what, and I don't have anything positive and doable to suggest, so I'll leave it at that.

I do agree that we need to rebuild our too-often needlessly adversarial relationship with the USAF.  That's been going on at least since I joined in 1993, and for some time before.  Unfortunately, we have only ourselves to blame for much of it, wanting things from the AF but wanting them our own way.

I don't have the answers as to how to rebuild that on a macro level, but I only do my bit on a micro level by being respectful to all AF (and other military) personnel that I encounter, from E-1 up to O-10 (haven't encountered any of those, though) and giving them assistance when asked for.  I sure as hell don't troll for salutes I'm not entitled to, though I am very appreciative of those I do receive.

One thing that I think could be helpful is to raise awareness of CAP among the Air Force.  Too many AF people don't know who we are or what function we serve, though I notice more of an awareness among ANG and AFRES than on the active side. 

I remember a conversation I had while breaking bread with two AFRES Sergeants about 15 years ago at an on-base Burger King.  They were very surprised to hear that not only were we unpaid, but we did not receive retirement points.  I think one said, "you put up with Air Force bureaucracy and BS voluntarily and don't get paid for it?!"

Unfortunately, I've found that the most widespread knowledge of us among our parent service is among recruiters being aware of our cadets, and that the function of adult members is to shepherd them through the cadet levels until they raise their right hand and are off to Lackland.

[Short Field]

Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.

I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF? 

[heliodoc]

Even I as a former E6 in the ARNG KNOWS about that CAP rank and grade structure

IS MSgt Van's answer enough for y'all??

Even RM can see RIGHT through all this CAP Commissioned Officer BS

Want it   Sign up RM and earn and take the responsibility required of a TRUE commissioned officer(s)

CAP?  Let it lie ..... be happy any of y'all are even called LT Maj or Colonel for that fact

Shheeeeeeeesh  ...CAP wanting to be commissioned officers...think enough RM and ARNG types have addressed y'all on this quite enough already?

[heliodoc]

^^^

err  that is Not LT  MAJ

It's LT, MAJ  for you flamethrowers

[MSgt Van]

Officers say what to do; NCO's get it done.

I guess that is why all the airplanes are flown by NCOs in the USAF?

Don't get me wrong - I have the utmost admiration and respect for those officers I served with while active duty. I also will be the first to say that I've seen an incredible amount of dedication "to the mission" from those serving CAP.

[Short Field]

I heard the phrase "NCOs get it done" continually repeated at a recent CAP NCO school.  Just wanted to point out that the USAF Officer/NCO model is not the same as the other services and Cadet slogans are just that - slogans.  Most of this is due to the high technical level required in a lot of jobs in the AF. 

I have served with lots of dedicated and very skilled NCOs and have the utmost respect for them (durned, I even worn stripes for a while).  Just don't forget that in a lot of the USAF warfighting related AFSCs, the Officer is as hands-on getting the mission accomplished as the NCOs. 

This is even more the case in CAP since finding a Senior Member wearing NCO rank is a rare event.

[jimmydeanno]

While the plane flyers may be officers, it doesn't negate the way the service works for the majority of the members that are in it.

Inherently, officers are responsible for strategic direction of whatever the mission is.  Officers still "do" stuff, just in a different way. 

The enlisted corps for the most part is responsible for the execution of that strategic goal - they are tactical in nature.

You can row a boat without a destination, but the effort is rather pointless.  However, you can have a destination, but without anyone to row, you won't get far.

The two compliment each other well and would not be able to succeed in the mission without the other.

[MSgt Van]

"... the Officer is as hands-on getting the mission accomplished as the NCOs. "

Roger that.   :clap:

[OldSalt]

First off, Maj. Carrales, while I respect most of what you say, your snide and quite frankly, naive comments assuming that I'm either a whining cadet because of my "diction", or some fresh off the bus recruit are way beneath you. I could be Gen. Courter for all you know. 

That's what's wrong with CAPTALK most of the time; as soon as someone's opinion differs from someone else's on here, here comes the pettiness and cheap shots. If you want to discredit someone's opinion, please do it with facts and not mere conjecture, unfounded personal opinions, and just plain old sarcasm.

Like I mentioned earlier, I started this thread to explore an idea with other CAP folks that I thought might be interesting. And contrary to popular belief, I did not start this thread as just another avenue to say "Why can't I be like the REAL military officers.", or "Please salute me...I'm an officer too!" crud.

My purpose initially, until I thought about it objectively after reading some intelligent and non-abrasive responses, was to address what I perceived as a shortcoming in our overall organizational structure. Of course, I agree with the line of thought that "Commissioning" our officers really would not solve the problem of why hold a command rank in the first place.

Some of the responses seem to want to tell everyone that visible rank and uniforms has no affect on how the organization operates. Some people say, why have a command rank if it really doesn't have anything to do with command. The argument that we are all volunteers so it doesn't matter who wears what rank or who is visibly in charge is again another of those cheap red-herring ploys to deflect us from the objective.

As far as rank being symbolic in CAP of your personal professional development, that is not the whole picture. In CAP, professional development milestones are exhibited with ribbons, (i.e. Membership, Leadership, Loening, Garber, Wilson) and not rank. Working your way up the PD tree does not automatically equate to a higher rank. Nor does obtaining ES or other specialized training.

In fact, it does matter to others outside of CAP what rank you are wearing. Go anywhere in your AF-Style uniform in public and see the reactions you get. Now do the same in your golf-shirt combo and see the difference.

Perception is stronger than reality for most humans and the reason that the AFI states than the CAP uniform must be distinctly different from any other military uniform is precisely for this reason. If it REALLY doesn't matter that we have any rank, let alone display it on a uniform then I would submit that we should just ditch every military-style uniform and just wear civvies for everything and everyone.

All I think I'm trying to say is that if we are going to have a rank structure that is helpful to our organizational structure and operations, and one that equates a member to their professional status, that the structure that seems to fit us more than the current structure is the warrant officer-style structure.

I guess the bottom line is, there appears to be no middle ground for CAP, either we are joined to the AF and use AF standards, or we are just another civilian organization like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and UNICEF.

Trying to maintain the status quo between CAP's dual personality is tantamount to vewing a tug-o-war competition.

[Eclipse]

So, if Commissions were granted, how many Commissioned CAP Officers would move to a unit that is near a military installation?  My bet, MANY.

Exactly zero.

[RiverAux]

I guess the bottom line is, there appears to be no middle ground for CAP, either we are joined to the AF and use AF standards, or we are just another civilian organiation like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and UNICEF.

Trying to maintain the status quo between CAP's dual personality is tantamount to vewing a tug-o-war competition.

I think you're wildly overestimating the position of those generally considered here as in favor of a "military" CAP.  For the most part they are for the basic status quo in that we remain civilians who wear military style uniforms.  It is really those most in favor of a "civilian" CAP that are advocating in radical change to the organization.  The "military" CAP members mostly just want to see our regulations enforced while the "civilian" CAP members want to get rid of the ones that make CAP a paramilitary organization. 

Quite frankly, it seems to me that those who most strongly push for higher officer standards (because they don't match what the real military does) in particular are those that actually favor a "civilian" CAP and are using supposed deficiencies in our PD system as their argument for dumping that stuff altogether.  Mind you, I'm not saying that all who favor higher officer standards are in the "civilian" camp.

So long as CAP has avenues for adults to exist and serve in CAP as "civilians" (wearing non-military uniforms and generally ignoring rank, customs & courtesies, etc.) then there will be conflict with those who favor our paramilitary heritage.  This is the bed CAP and the AF have made. 

But, keep in mind, this split mostly exists on CAPTalk, not in the real world.  Such issues are not cared about or discussed for the most part in real life.