CAP grades

[DNall]

Wall - Head. Head - Wall. Play ni.. the heck with it. I'm outta here.

I'm not sure I saw the failure to play nice. Frustration perhaps with a troubled system I care about & want to see succeed in spite of itself, and perhaps a willingness to be slightly & respectfully confrontational to make people look outside a box. But, never disrespectful or failing to play nice.

[Trung Si Ma]

What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on on-line modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cause ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

Personally, I like the idea of all of us becoming Flight Officers with five grades (FO1, FO2, CFO3, CFO4, MFO5) corresponding to the current Senior Program Levels.  Then granting grade to duty positions based on command positions (Sqdrn CC -  1st Lt initially, Capt after 18 sequential months in command and Level 3; Group CC - Maj, LtCol after two sequential years in command and Level 4) with their deputies one grade below.  Revert back to the appropriate FO grade upon giving up command / deputy commander.

This would give us a very military appearing organization to outsiders and reward those doing the tough jobs.

Think of how easy it would be to figure out who are the commanders at an activity.  It's also easier to say that I am Master Flight Officer Smith and my squadron commander is 1st Lt Jones rather than it being LtCol Smith working for 2nd Lt Jones to an outside agency.

Trung Si Ma

[DNall]

Well I'd prefer to stick with actual military grades rather than once again running off in our own direction & making things up that don't mean anything to outsiders, especial the AF who we are supposed to be modeled off of.

As to officer grades by position - a la CGAux - I don't personally like that much for a number of reasons, not least of which is it goes out the window at a mission were that Sq CC is probably a GTL working for a some kind of FO at IC. It also does nothing to change our membership, just the titles we foist on them. I actually want to change the people.

I'd like to see the standard membership with an altered version of the current adult program in enlisted or warrant officer grades. And then select prime volunteers from that pool to endure intensive professional training as officers, mirroring as nearly as reasonably possibel the standards for AF officers of the same grades (academic content from OTS, PME & merit based promotions from there tied to the same kinds of TIG as the AF uses)... It's not that complicated, but if we're going to be part of the AF family & expect to help them do anything important, then we ought to be able to function as officers with similiar standards. If we want to grow & move forward in partnership with them, then we have to get on board. You'd get a military appearing structure that way because 2Lts aren't qualified to command units, and people that are actually qualified to be LtCols will be working at other levels. Your mission operators are going to be enlisted/warrants that focus on the job, but the staff back at base is going to be officers with extensive leadership & mgmt training that have exposure & limited experience in those field specialties, but it was just a stepping stone to running operations. That's how the real world functions & where I think we need to be aiming.

[Eclipse]

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. 

There are plenty, especially in CAP, "50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business" who have trouble finding mission base, let alone actually leading anyone, and the "I'm 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business..." attitude is exactly the problem with many of our members. 

They are "50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business, and don't know thing one about ES or the military, but believe their 75 hours PIC makes them God's gift.

An inability to check their ego is an operational liability, and either they learn or they leave, at least while I have a say.

[DNall]

It's an ADCON liability as well. We don't literally have force of law behind our grade, so the only meaning it has is what we assign it & culturally enforce on each other. That becomes nothing when that guy with a chip on his shoulder thinks he's better than a more experienced younger member & fails to support good order & discipline. For the same reason I don't really like some of the advanced appointments we make. Do we really need to make pilots a Capt right off the bat? or lawyer gets LtCol in a couple years or whatever, that's an insult to people that spend 15 years working up to that point.

The OTS we talked about on the portal req'd to get a slot, either a 4yr degree or 60hrs w/ EMT/hamm/pilot/2yrs professional experience related to being a staff officer. Then you end up a 2Lt & you sure earned it & respect others that have also. We did actually talk about doctors & lawyers that deserve to be appoitned up (capt & 1Lt respectively) and recognizing their time constraints, wanted to run a less time intensive course for them like the military does, but when they got done they would remain JA or HSOs & could not command units or line personnel until they go on to complete a couple more courses. to get caught up with their grade.

I'm telling ya, I really think this would work to run an enlisted or warrant corps & train professional officers that the military can respect & see a shared standard in.

[afgeo4]

The problem is that CAPR 35-5 contains a typo or faulty information.  It is in fact in conflict with other CAP regs when it comes to NCO grades.

1. There is CAP Grade of Sgt... our grade is based on USAF if you haven't noticed and us having Flight Officers is a thing of necessity, not choice. If you disagree, check for what grade insignia a CAP equivalent of E-5 (Sergeant) would be and get back to me.
2. Only blue USAF chevrons are authorized for wear for CAP NCO's and the insignia covers only SSgt, TSgt, MSgt, SMSgt, and CMSgt.  There is NO insignia for Sgt (3 stripes is SrA). If you're still confused, check the old cadet grade insignia vs. new cadet grade insignia.  It mirrors the USAF just like our officer grades do.
3. Sgt E-4 doesn't exist and hasn't existed in USAF for years.  The Army has E-4 Corporal NCO's, but Sergeant is and always was E-5. It's the same for USMC.

I understand your urge to follow pen and paper instead of common sense, but sometimes you have to resist my friend.  Especially in CAP where manuals and regulations get updated about once a decade even though they should be updated every year or so. The regulation in question was updated in 2004, but VERY apparently someone forgot to update that specific paragraph. Perhaps we should bring that to their attention and hope that the 2014 revision contains the change.

[DNall]

Right I know that, but the enlisted or warrant corps discussed above is not prior service but rather civilian CAP members. Thereby raising the bar substantially for what it takes to be an officer & advance... I'd say somewhere around 80% of what it takes to hold the same officer grade in the AFRes/ANG.

[DrJbdm]

There's no such restriction in the AF. You're able to enlist at 17 w/ parental consent or 18 w/o. That is the minimum age requirement to be an officer in the AF (if anybody can find anything different let me know). You can see the Army requirement I posted there is 19 when entering the 3month process (OCS) to become a 2Lt. Not just the AF, but the whole military considers the education & intelligence demonstrated in a degree to be a qualifier, not age. There is only a maximum age, and then only for retainability reasons.

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. Causing them to put aside that part of their personaility & conform to a military hierarchy requires an attitude adjustment that is so far beyond CAP's ability. Allowing that situation to exist would not favor good order & discipline, which you can talk crap about if you like, but if you don't have it in the field people WILL get hurt. You can also say grade is meaningless but rank via ICS in a mission is not, but what you let in your head in garrison will still be there in the field. Trust & mustual respect doesn't come with a job title. Let me ask you then, what's different about that situation & if the younger kid is 22-25 & a Captain?

I've NEVER seen any idication from the AF that they've ever even thought about 18-21 yos holding CAP officer grades. That is a CAP creation to disguise to the AF the low standards to become a CAP officer. It looks stupid to have a bunch of 18yos woalking around w/ officer grade, but then no less stupid than an all-officer ground team or a bunch of 60yo Lts. It's smoke & mirrors.

I understand why the 18-21 folks aren't made officers, and I appreiciate the practical psychology behind it. What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

[MIKE]

Is there a response in there somewhere? 

[DrJbdm]

There's no such restriction in the AF. You're able to enlist at 17 w/ parental consent or 18 w/o. That is the minimum age requirement to be an officer in the AF (if anybody can find anything different let me know). You can see the Army requirement I posted there is 19 when entering the 3month process (OCS) to become a 2Lt. Not just the AF, but the whole military considers the education & intelligence demonstrated in a degree to be a qualifier, not age. There is only a maximum age, and then only for retainability reasons.

The reason CAP has FOs is cause a 50yo w/ a degree & 25years in business is not going to check their pride at the door to submit to the orders of a 20yo college student. Causing them to put aside that part of their personaility & conform to a military hierarchy requires an attitude adjustment that is so far beyond CAP's ability. Allowing that situation to exist would not favor good order & discipline, which you can talk crap about if you like, but if you don't have it in the field people WILL get hurt. You can also say grade is meaningless but rank via ICS in a mission is not, but what you let in your head in garrison will still be there in the field. Trust & mustual respect doesn't come with a job title. Let me ask you then, what's different about that situation & if the younger kid is 22-25 & a Captain?

I've NEVER seen any idication from the AF that they've ever even thought about 18-21 yos holding CAP officer grades. That is a CAP creation to disguise to the AF the low standards to become a CAP officer. It looks stupid to have a bunch of 18yos woalking around w/ officer grade, but then no less stupid than an all-officer ground team or a bunch of 60yo Lts. It's smoke & mirrors.

I understand why the 18-21 folks aren't made officers, and I appreiciate the practical psychology behind it. What I don't appreciate is what we require of 21+ members to become officers, and because that standard is non-existant it makes the under-21 FO grades invalid & discriminatory. No one has suggested making under 21 members an officer by waiver or otherwise. I suggest making them an Airman or WOC, along with every other member who joins, then to have an application for OTS w/ requirements like an associates degree, some letters of rec, & a competitive interview w/ a board including an AF rep; and that's just to start, then you need to spend a year of CAP w/ a mentor working on online modules covering the academics from AF OTS, cuase ultimately we need to rise near their standards to be part of their family if we want to be of any service to the nation at all.

     
      OK, I'm new to these forums so I'm trying to get the hang of it all. First let me say that I agree with DNall completely on this subject of professional standards to be a CAP Officer.

I took a look at the website for the American Cadet Alliance and looked at the requirements and procedures to be an Officer in that group. Now that group is in no way belonging to any military service like we are. However they have some good standards for being an Officer there. It's a long process and it takes time. Currently CAP is very inclusive, meaning we will accept pretty much anybody and in six months we will make them a 2Lt. regardless of there: education, maturity, age (over 21), background, and leadership potential.  CAP is a part of the US Air Force and it has been since the Air Force was created, No other organization can claim that. We are also the only military organization that I know of that has a actual role in US Govt. Emergency Services. Yet we have NO standards for membership or to be an Officer. Here's what I propose:

1) Take some of the same standards that the ACA uses for Officers and use them here.
2) require college education to be an Officer (I prefere a Bachelors Degree but will settle for 60 hrs)
    perhaps waive the degree requirement IF the member is a senior Military NCO and wishes to become an Officer. or a former cadet officer who attained at least the Earhart Award.
3) People with technical skills that are needed in CAP (IE: Pilot, radio operator, EMT/paramedic (w/o degree) can be appointed as a warrant officer or flight officer or whatever term national wants to use.
4) Have an Officer selection board at the Wing level that includes at least one Air Force Officer on it to look over and approve Officer applications.
5) once approved they will become Officer Canadates and wear blank slides on the uniform and move thru the OTS process. (ECI-13, modified AF OTS program-look at AFIADL for ideas, they should also attend an encampment or be trained in formal classes at the squadron level taught by CAP Officers. the process should take no less then one year to 18 months.
6 require the Officer Canadates to meet the CAP weight/grooming standards prior to commissioning.

   Now those who wish to be members and assist in the squadron but not be an Officer can be brought in as Uniformed Instructors. they would also have to take level 1, cadet protection, and perhaps SLS. but they wouldn't be able to earn any of the Officer awards that we have now like we have now. they wouldn't be eligible to serve as unit commanders or deputy commanders but could fill in on any other staff position IE:personnel,finance,safety,ect.

I know this maybe controversial to some people, but face it we NEED to have higher standards for our Leaders while also being inclusive enough for general membership. However we do it we really should have some of the same standards that the ANG or AF has for Officer selection. Not everyone in CAP needs to be an Officer. make them Uniformed Instructors or whatever you want to call them. But we have to create credibility in CAP and having high standards is a great start.

[BillB]

The requirement that all Officers meet grooming and/or height and weight standards will reduce the membership by a very large percentage. Otherwise I lean towards agreeing with your post.
The old ECI had a Officer Candidtate Course way back, and there wouldn't be much of a problem to rewrite it and bring it up to date for CAP. Level 1 is basically a useless waste of time for new members. The information they need to know is not included.
Taking a CFII and telling him because he doesn't have a degree he can only be a Flight Officer is counterproductive. Yo'll be driving people away from CAP in the long run

[DrJbdm]

  Well if that CFII joined to fly cadets or to fly missions then whats wrong with making him a SFO or CWO or something if he doesn't meet the standards for being an Officer. My point was that we need real standards in CAP for our Officers.  Did we all join to serve or did we join to become Officers? I think it's great we are able to allow alot of people to serve but do they all need to serve as Officers? Having standards raises our perception by the AF and the public. Perception IS reality. It's just the way the world works.

[arajca]

Why does this discussion seem familiar?

[MIKE]

OK, I'm new to these forums so I'm trying to get the hang of it all.

It's cool... Was just trying to see if there is something I can help you with.

[Al Sayre]

I've got the popcorn...

[mmouw]

So here is a question, what do we do with everyone right now? If you have a CAP Lt.Col who has no degree or special ability, but has put in his time and completed the requirements what do you do then? I agree that we should raise the bar for everyone who wants to be an officer, but we need to consider who we have now. If we grandfather them in, is that fair to the new members? It would be a nightmare to manage and I think a killer for recruitment.

The one idea I have is to make the AF courses mandatory for promotion and not in place of CAP in residence. The AF has SOS via correspondence and then they take it in residence as well. Maybe we do away with RSC and NSC and see if the AF will open the in resident courses to us. That way all professional development mirrors what is expected of AF officers. Last time I checked NCS is done by AF officers anyway. SOS, ACSC, and AWC are all held at Maxwell just like NSC. It would put the decision in the hands of the individual as to how far they want to progress. Just an idea. I think it would raise the view of the AF and AF officers on CAP officers.

Just a side thought, being here on an active duty base, I here the term "real Officers" a lot. It of course comes from active duty folks and I find it offensive. Our squadron has more than 50% of active or retired officers as members. Even a retired o-6. People still don't see it in that light however. I, myself, have a degree, I have been active duty, attended SOS, and have performed command duties. How does this not make me a real officer? It may be in CAP, but my sliver bars are not less sliver. I am not talking about commanding active duty troops or anything like that, but in the since of the word I am. Most don't realize what we have to do to make grade. I do believe that if they see us sitting in the same classes they do it would raise our image and possibly help in the respect department.

[Al Sayre]

Unfortunately, if they see us sitting in the same classes they take, they are more likely to wonder "Who the heck are these guys, and what AD Officers slot did they steal?"  Also, for USAF in residence courses, the problem is numbers.  CAP has a very high turn over rate, how many new CAP 2d Lts can the USAF afford to feed and house for a week at a time, and how will it affect the slots for their new 2d Lt's?  Same goes for the other courses, the USAF just simply isn't prepared to pick up training for around 30,000 CAP Officers.  I wish they were, but reality raises its ugly head...

[Psicorp]

I think it would be great if we could do resident courses in an Air Force setting.  As far as slots and cost, make it space available and charge members room and board.  I think the turn over would be less if members were given the opportunity to do more, especially in the beginning stages.  It's far better than saying, "congratulations, you're an Officer, please show up every Wednesday evening from XXXX to XXXX hours and oh yeah, take this correspondence course sometime between now and this time next year."

[Hawk200]

Just a side thought, being here on an active duty base, I here the term "real Officers" a lot. It of course comes from active duty folks and I find it offensive. Our squadron has more than 50% of active or retired officers as members. Even a retired o-6. People still don't see it in that light however. I, myself, have a degree, I have been active duty, attended SOS, and have performed command duties. How does this not make me a real officer? It may be in CAP, but my sliver bars are not less sliver. I am not talking about commanding active duty troops or anything like that, but in the since of the word I am. Most don't realize what we have to do to make grade. I do believe that if they see us sitting in the same classes they do it would raise our image and possibly help in the respect department.

Personnally, I don't care for the "real officer" term either. I use the term "commissioned officers". The truth of the matter is that CAP officers have not gone through the same schools as commissioned officers have, and we do not have the commision that they do.

One thing that most of the active duty folks do not know is that we do have the opportunity to take Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Air War College by correspondance. I think if many of them knew that, we would probably rate a little higher in their opinions.

[davedove]

One problem I see with requiring the AF in-residence courses is that a lot of training would occur that has nothing to do with CAP.  As much as some folks may like to be, we are NOT the military.  We really don't need training on warfighting, and it may be counterproductive.

I can see requiring certain levels of assignment before being promoted.  I would also understand requiring service at the next lower level of organization before you can take a position.  Maybe you could also require a certain grade/service requirement before being allowed to take a command position.

Of course, all of this runs into the problem of then being able to fill positions.  Often, a position is filled only because someone agrees to do it, not because they are qualified.  We do have to remember that we are made up of unpaid volunteers who have other lives.