SM vs C/AB - Why the discrepancy?

[flyboy53]

We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join.  When being referred to officially they are called Senior Member Jones (SM Jones) as if "Senior Member" were a CAP grade.  The fact that such people are referred to in the regulations as "senior members without grade" obviously means that they don't have a CAP grade though they are given a title that makes it seem like they do.

We've had quite a few different proposals with dealing with new senior members ranging from calling them "Officer Candidates" to making them "Airmen" until they can jump up to 2nd Lt. (or whatever other rank they can get while taking advantage of the various special or mission-related promotion opportunities we have available.

However, the one thing that I don't think has ever been brought up here is the fact that we're treating new cadets and new seniors differently.  When a cadert joins they are immediately assigned the rank of Cadet Airman Basic.  They don't exist in some limbo phase as a "Cadet without grade" until they complete the Curry and go to Cadet Airman. 

So, shouldn't we be giving new senior members SOME sort of grade?

The joke is that if that individual were to take an AFDLI course, they'd be an E-1 grade wise.

Therefore, I really think that officer trainee or candidate would be a great idea, better than just senior member. It would also solve some of the uniform insignia inconsistancies. I always thought it odd that an AB/E-1 in the Air Force wears a flight cap with blue piping. In the CAP, however, there's officer piping on fhe flight cap and a CAP device...for what it's worth in this forum.

[Lt Oliv]

No more insignias, please.

Do like the USCG Aux if we have to do something.

Have an organizational crest that is worn on the epaulets by SMs.

I would strongly favor either eliminating FO ranks or actually recording them at national, however.

[Ned]

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

First, the age at which a person legally becomes an adult with responsiblity for themselves is generally called "the age of majority."  Persons who have not reached this chronilogical age are minors.

For the great majority of our nation's history, the age was fairly universal at 21.  In the late 20th century, it was changed to 18 for most - but not all - states.


And Puerto Rico stayed at 21.

So, we have a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year old seniors who are legally minors in their home state/commonwealth.

And we haven't even talked about the overseas units.

(Don't confuse the age of majority with the "voting age" which indeed is 18 in all states by federal law.  But voting age and the age of majority are different concepts.)


Second, we currently have some 17 year old senior members because the 39-2 allows them to be seniors if they are serving on active duty ("regardless of age. para 3-2 (b)).

Thanks for asking.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[HGjunkie]

Care to elaborate?

Sure.

First, the age at which a person legally becomes an adult with responsiblity for themselves is generally called "the age of majority."  Persons who have not reached this chronilogical age are minors.

For the great majority of our nation's history, the age was fairly universal at 21.  In the late 20th century, it was changed to 18 for most - but not all - states.


And Puerto Rico stayed at 21.

So, we have a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year old seniors who are legally minors in their home state/commonwealth.

And we haven't even talked about the overseas units.

(Don't confuse the age of majority with the "voting age" which indeed is 18 in all states by federal law.  But voting age and the age of majority are different concepts.)


Second, we currently have some 17 year old senior members because the 39-2 allows them to be seniors if they are serving on active duty ("regardless of age. para 3-2 (b)).

Thanks for asking.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Lesson learned. thanks for replying.

[RiverAux]

SM is not a "temporary" grade any more than an actual grade.Of course cadets are treated differently.

Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.

Explain to me the age-critical reason for assigning new cadets a grade while not doing so for adults? 

Sure we treat cadets differently than seniors differently in a lot of areas of CAP, but there is usually a logical reason behind it. 

Are you saying that 65-year old new seniors can't handle being given a grade when joining CAP, but that 12-year old cadets can? 

[CAPOfficer]

I do not understand what all the ruckus is about with this topic, according to CAPM 39-2, Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has ten types of membership categories.  Of these, grade may be awarded or earned in only six of them; Cadets, Seniors, State Legislative members, Congressional members, Honorary members and Life members.

When a youth member joins CAP, s/he is a Cadet and addressed as Cadet.  When an adult joins CAP, s/he is a Senior and addressed as Mr., Ms. or Miss.

Those senior's who have attained a grade, are addressed by their grade and last name.  Again, those that have not, are addressed by utilizing the terminology; Mr., Ms or Miss and their last name.

CAPR 35-5, Section A, paragraph 1-3 lists all the senior member grades.  Senior member without grade is not listed and therefore does not exist (as a grade).

In the next paragraph (1-4), it makes it clear that not all senior members have grade (as stated above) unless certain conditions are met.  To be a member without grade does not imply a grade but that fact that one has not yet been attained, nothing more.

If anything, to avoid confusion on this issue, CAP could change paragraph 1-4 to read;  "Initial Status. All seniors will be enrolled as CAP seniors without grade, unless they are specifically exempt from Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program and immediately qualify for an officer grade in consideration of previous CAP experience, as set forth in section C."

By removing the term "Grade" from the paragraph identifier and replacing it with "Status" would go a long way in avoiding confusion. In addition, removing the word "members" from "senior members" would be a plus.  After all, we are speaking of the individual, not the category.

[RiverAux]

When a youth member joins CAP, s/he is a Cadet and addressed as Cadet.

Actually, they are addressed as Airman (as are C/AMN, C/A1C, C/SrA) when you want to use their grade, though "Cadet" can be used as a generic term for all cadets by senior members.  There is no generic form of address for all senior members in the same way.

Those senior's who have attained a grade, are addressed by their grade and last name.  Again, those that have not, are addressed by utilizing the terminology; Mr., Ms or Miss and their last name.

Actually no.  According to CAPP 151, senior members without grade are addressed as "Senior Member".  And, of course we have the contradiction of this pamphlet indicating that "Senior Member" is a grade itself (p. 16) even though it isn't one (offiically). 

[lordmonar]

Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade. 

I suppose this brings us to a discussion on the point of CAP rank.

What does it mean for a CAP rank to be "above" or "below" another?

Don't confuse GRADE with RANK.

Grade is what you wear on your shoulder and RANK is where you are in the pecking order.

CAP is special as all our authority comes from position and not grade.

Our "rank" is driven by that authority.

In a purely social context we default to the RM military tradition where RANK and GRADE are in sync....but operationally RANK comes from position.  The IC is always the boss....no matter what his grade.  The Squadron CC is always the boss...no matter what his grade.  The Operations Officer is always the boss over the Assitant Ops Officers....no matter what his grade.

In the military, there is a difference in pay and (generally) responsibility.

In the military, you will not likely find a unit commanded by an O-1 with two O-5's serving under him/her.

No but you will find any number of situations where an O-3 or O-4 may be over an O-5 or O-6. (Pilots In Command, Captains (position not rank) of Navy Ships, etc).  I have personally been placed over an E-7 when I was a lowly E-7 as a shift leader for the Disaster Preparedness Support Team.  It happens all the time in the RM....they just have mechinims in place to ensure that it does not happen often.

Likewise, you may consider SM "below" another grade, but the reality is, it is an orange in a bunch of apples. It is a non-military sounding grade smack dab in the middle of a military-style hierarchy.

NO not realy.  They wear a uniform....if the choose....they have a title, they are just below all other senior members and above all cadets.  The name is kind of clunky......if that's your problem....let's call them 3rd Leutenants!  Think of them as sort of like ROTC or USAFA cadets.....they don't rate any sort of salute or authority except to other cadets.  They are Senior Memebers.

The fact is, we have SM Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels who have never served in command positions.

Only because they never bothered to fill out the paper work.  Commanders get an automatic promotion to 1st Lt and an advance to Capt after one year.  Not very conductive to your argument.

Rank denotes completion of PD requirements more than anything else because the prevailing wisdom is that members "deserve" promotion if they get all of the "check-offs" rather than being related to additional responsibilities.

No....GRADE denote completion of PD requirmens and other box checking......and a subjective evaluation by their commanders.  That the bar is held low does not mean it is not there.

The last thing we need is more ranks, more Levels or anything of the sort.

I think the time has come for CAP to either rethink how we apply military grade or scrap the system altogether and go to a system like what the USCG Auxiliary uses.

So now we go from one extreme to the other......No NCOs because it is confusing and not needed to let's completely throw out the grade system!

While I will admit there is some merit to giving GRADE to match your RANK (i.e. position) you will not be able to sell that to the rank and file.

[lordmonar]

SM is not a "temporary" grade any more than an actual grade.Of course cadets are treated differently.

Cadets are kids and senior members are adults. We're supposed to be treated differently.

Explain to me the age-critical reason for assigning new cadets a grade while not doing so for adults? 

Sure we treat cadets differently than seniors differently in a lot of areas of CAP, but there is usually a logical reason behind it. 

Are you saying that 65-year old new seniors can't handle being given a grade when joining CAP, but that 12-year old cadets can?

We do assign new SM's a grade....it is called SM!  They were the same insigina as a C/AB (CAP cutouts).

At this point we are just arguing semantics....and technicalities.

[RiverAux]

We do assign new SM's a grade....it is called SM!  They were the same insigina as a C/AB (CAP cutouts).

At this point we are just arguing semantics....and technicalities.

I find this a surprising comment from someone who just spent an entire post emphasizing how important it is to distinguish between rank and grade.  A Senior member without grade is by definition someone that does not have a grade.  CAP certainly could make Senior Member (SM) an actual grade.  It would only take a few minor regulation changes.  It would just sort of stand out from the other military grades that CAP uses. 

[Lt Oliv]

Their grade is below FO or any CAP NCOs you may have. You can't have a member without grade, you just have someone at the lowest grade. 

No but you will find any number of situations where an O-3 or O-4 may be over an O-5 or O-6. (Pilots In Command, Captains (position not rank) of Navy Ships, etc).  I have personally been placed over an E-7 when I was a lowly E-7 as a shift leader for the Disaster Preparedness Support Team.  It happens all the time in the RM....they just have mechinims in place to ensure that it does not happen often.

This example is....well...poorly formulated. You seem to be claiming that a Navy Captain (position not rank) who is, say, an O-4 could be in command while, say, an O-5 is placed below their command. This is just not the case. Your example is a very common situation, but is, well...different.

There is a difference between having an O-5 CO with an O-6 under their command and say, an E-6 being in charge of a safety team, a disaster preparedness team or even an inventory team that has an E-7. It is sort of like the protocol for a life boat.

You have a life boat filled with seamen and airmen, along with an Ensign (O-1) who has been in the Navy for a year and a Senior Chief Petty Officer. Who takes command? The SCPO. For survival, experience has to trump grade. That's RTC stuff.

That does not mean that the SCPO will ever assume a permanent command with an O-1 placed under him.

Likewise, you may consider SM "below" another grade, but the reality is, it is an orange in a bunch of apples. It is a non-military sounding grade smack dab in the middle of a military-style hierarchy.

NO not realy.  They wear a uniform....if the choose....they have a title, they are just below all other senior members and above all cadets.  The name is kind of clunky......if that's your problem....let's call them 3rd Leutenants!  Think of them as sort of like ROTC or USAFA cadets.....they don't rate any sort of salute or authority except to other cadets.  They are Senior Memebers.

No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.

The fact is, we have SM Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels who have never served in command positions.

Only because they never bothered to fill out the paper work.  Commanders get an automatic promotion to 1st Lt and an advance to Capt after one year.  Not very conductive to your argument.

Wrong. Nothing is "automatic." We have SM Commanders who do not want the rank. They are eligible for a special promotion, which is not "automatic" it is something that must be applied for and approved. Have I ever seen one disapproved? Indeed I have.

Rank denotes completion of PD requirements more than anything else because the prevailing wisdom is that members "deserve" promotion if they get all of the "check-offs" rather than being related to additional responsibilities.
No....GRADE denote completion of PD requirmens and other box checking......and a subjective evaluation by their commanders.  That the bar is held low does not mean it is not there.

Your statement further buttresses the argument for the abolition of grades altogether.

The last thing we need is more ranks, more Levels or anything of the sort.

I think the time has come for CAP to either rethink how we apply military grade or scrap the system altogether and go to a system like what the USCG Auxiliary uses.


So now we go from one extreme to the other......No NCOs because it is confusing and not needed to let's completely throw out the grade system!

No....let me type slower for you, you seem to have difficulty understanding. We either need to make the CAP grade matter, or abolish grade altogether. If being a Lieutenant Colonel doesn't mean anything, why do we even have the check boxes? Why don't we spend all of our time on mission training and just organize ourselves like a volunteer fire department? That is the point I was trying to make.

While I will admit there is some merit to giving GRADE to match your RANK (i.e. position) you will not be able to sell that to the rank and file.

CAP has never been a democracy. You'd be surprised how many people feel that grade should be tied to position. Let the powers that be rain it down upon the masses. There will be grumbling. But if we get rid of half the people who are here to play soldier, I'd be happy.

[Short Field]

No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers.

Please provide an example of this as I have never seen it and I have had WOs working for me.  The only exceptions are pilots in command of aircraft, captains in command of ships, a commander in charge of a school, etc. 

[Lt Oliv]

No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers.

Please provide an example of this as I have never seen it and I have had WOs working for me.  The only exceptions are pilots in command of aircraft, captains in command of ships, a commander in charge of a school, etc.

Certainly.

I was attached to a Weapons Station under the command of an O-4 (LCDR). Immediately below him was the Deputy WEPSO who was an LTJG. Below him, a CWO4 and then into the senior enlisted.

Whenever the WEPSO left the base, the CWO4 was in charge.

I'm not saying you cannot have a WO working below you. I am saying that a WO can be appointed over another officer who is higher in grade.

[Short Field]

Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he?  That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.

[Lt Oliv]

Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he?  That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.

No, the Deputy had been in the Navy for 3 years. He was filling the only billet available for an O-2 in the Department.

The CWO4 has been in the Navy for 25 years.

I find it funny that in the other thread, I commented on how the USAF and the Navy were clearly different and you (defensively) added that the culture of the USAF is different. Yet, over on this thread, because the Navy treats WO's differently, the O-2 MUST be incompetent. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the Navy just utilizes WOs differently than you did.

[RADIOMAN015]

Then the Deputy wasn't really the deputy was he?  That is a really strong comment on the Deputy's leadership ability.

I find it funny that in the other thread, I commented on how the USAF and the Navy were clearly different and you (defensively) added that the culture of the USAF is different. Yet, over on this thread, because the Navy treats WO's differently, the O-2 MUST be incompetent. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the Navy just utilizes WOs differently than you did.

Seem like this thread got "hijacked" like others that you've recently added your comments to

Frankly all of you need to realize that this is the CIVIL Air Patrol.  That new senior members who don't have any rank can be addressed as Mister or Misz CAP.   Someone's rank in CAP doesn't necessary indicate their current proficiency level or specific expertise.  There's some folks without rank that have special skills and regardless of no rank need to be listen to by everyone regardless of rank.

Again it's CIVIL Air Patrol -- Go join the military if you want to be in the military; CAP isn't the military but for some adults allows them to fulfill their "fantasy" of living their interpretation of military :angel:
RM 

[kd8gua]

Instead of arguing the semantics of a SM being a grade vs. a SM being a Senior Member - without grade, more time could/should be spent on trying to clear up the confusion in the regs and come to some agreement one way or another.

When in the presence of cadets or other squadron's seniors, or being referred to in the presence of either, I'm referred to as Senior Member. The cadets also call me sir. I did not tell them they had to; they just do so. If we argue the semantics, I shouldn't be called "Sir" because that's only for 2d Lt and above. They do so more because most SM's do eventually promote, and it's also more polite then saying "Yes, Mister" or "Thank you Mister." That just makes me think of the 1960s TV shows, like Leave It  to Beaver, with the neighborhood children receiving something cool from a neighbor, and them yelling "This is swell! Gee, Thanks Mister!" 

And, I'm sure we could more constructively create a uniform guide for the Senior Members without Grade instead of this!

Ps. As an aside in relation to grade insignia, I was told once, either here or elsewhere, that the CAP cutouts are not a grade insignia. They are worn on the C/AB and SM uniforms to distinguish them from USAF new recruits, who would have no stripes/insignia. Now, I don't know how many 12 year old cadets would get confused for AD recruits, but it's much easier to confuse new seniors, especially younger ones, with AD recruits, therefore there is a need to distinguish SMWOG by adding the CAP cutouts to clear any possible confusion.

[DakRadz]

Ps. As an aside in relation to grade insignia, I was told once, either here or elsewhere, that the CAP cutouts are not a grade insignia. They are worn on the C/AB and SM uniforms to distinguish them from USAF new recruits, who would have no stripes/insignia. Now, I don't know how many 12 year old cadets would get confused for AD recruits, but it's much easier to confuse new seniors, especially younger ones, with AD recruits, therefore there is a need to distinguish SMWOG by adding the CAP cutouts to clear any possible confusion.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, sir. (Notice the automatic "sir"- I typed that on autopilot.)
Remember, too, that you can join as a cadet at 17- perfectly legal age for an AD recruit, so long as they have a diploma or GED. That could lead to confusion, with even a 17 yr old not sure how to handle the situation.

I joined at 16 1/2. Same deal- my History teacher even asked me if I had enlisted. (In the National Guard, no less...) My response? I used my patches, nametapes for visual clarification, because I really was caught off guard by the question and probably couldn't have explained otherwise. So the cutouts did their job

[Daniel]

We are talking about the same CAP right?

We call Senior Members without grade 'Senior Members' because frankly, what else logically would we call them? Also it follows suit, a lot, I regress, A LOT of sqns call SMWOG 'Senior Members' Why be different/difficult?


For instance, lets talk about following suit vs. using loopholes,

NHQ nor wing supplements require wing patches nor specify which one to wear, therefore because of this technical loophole, I'm going to get one of those cool overseas wing patches and to wear around. Why don't I? Because, I come from Missouri, I'll stick out oddly and almost every other sqn has mo wing patches.

So I wear one. No matter how much the mule looks like an Armadillo

[High Speed Low Drag]

Here's my stick to stir the pot:

Why not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".  Because, in essence, that is what they are.  They are a member of CAP, in the senior member catagory, but have not been awarded a CAP a grade.  Unlike the cadet program, a senior member does not have to advance in grade to contiune to be a member.  The title is respectful of the CAP M(S), but clearly shows they do not have a CAP grade.  A poster awhile ago suggested "Officer Trainee" however that is not an accurate reflection of who they are becasue they do not have to become an officer.

Think of Col. Boe.  A USAF Col, but a CAP SM w/o grade.  Col. Boe retains his affiliation with us becuase he believes in the cadet program and what it did for him.  He allows CAP to use him as a marketing tool.  Do you think that someone who is a senior member with grade - say a CAP Major - going to try and order Col. Boe around (which they technically could do under the regualtions)?