CAP NCO's

[Hardshell Clam]

After all this chat about NCOs, I went to our sqd meeting tonight and formally request my NCO rank.

Sewing the chevrons this week and will be wearing by next meeting! :clap:

[sandman]

The peril is the same paradigm of misunderstanding that we have today with the officer grades, only worse, since you will
have a whole class of members who, by their very design are subordinate to another whole class, and that doesn't even include
those who will try to use it to their advantage by insinuating they are "above" the duties normally assigned to enlisted personnel.

Is an NCO who is a CAP pilot allowed to eat in the O-Club on base with the rest of his equal volunteer aircrew?
Would they fall-in differently in formation because they are NCO's vs. Officers?
What about NCO's serving as unit/group/wing CC's?  The situation of SMWOG CC's is bad enough, let alone the paradigm of a
wing or group CC, E-5, having to salute flight officers at an encampment or similar activity.
How about a whole class of members who feel they bear no responsibility for any of the planning or higher level jobs
because, by design, their class of membership is "doer" vs. "planner".  Awesome - we can add "I'm just here to teach drill" to the pile of "I'm just here to fly". T-Shirts.
Etc., etc.   All to no end.

The bottom line, is that this fulfills no need, serves no mission, incurs (minor) expense, and has the potential for bad feelings among
members.

Rather than constantly having to say "why not?", someone needs to say "why?"  The only attempt at any justification was the insinuation that NCO's would somehow enhance our cadet program through their NCO force power, which only works if and when they are wearing their stripes.

Is an NCO who is a CAP pilot allowed to eat in the O-Club on base with the rest of his equal volunteer aircrew?

I wanted to chime in a bit and examine this. I would propose that a CAP member who is a pilot should remain in an officer grade while qualified for and performing that mission for CAP. I would propose that other members in such officer jobs, such as commander, chaplain, doctor, nurse, etc. be required to wear an officer grade when performing that duty and wearing skill badges reflecting that position.

On the other hand, members in support roles, such as administration, ground team membership/leadership, even incident command should be allowed to choose either officer or enlisted (provided a viable enlisted program is developed).

And in my perfect world, I would abolish the cadet officer ranks. That would make passing the Spaatz exam a requirement for cadet E-9....and why not? Earning the Spaatz ribbon allows enlistment at the E-3 rank. That being said, I would allow cadets enrolled in the ROTC (not JROTC) earn cadet officer ranks. That's just my view of how it should be!

[Eclipse]

The qualification for E-3 is earned with Mitchell, not Spaatz.

[sarmed1]

I have to agree with the nay-sayers to the extent that if there is no enlisted force there is little need for an NCO corps in so much the same "skill set" you bring as an NCO doesnt change if you have to wear bars instead of stripes.

The only way I see to rectify that is to create and enisted force.  I am of the opinion (and I am not alone I am sure) that the officer system in CAP is a little out of tune with the actual preception of military officer education and to some extent ability (on a side note I have failed to see for the past 18 years how a 4 year college experience suddenly makes you a "leader", but I digress )

I think that CAP coud change this some to meet both expectations..... an adaptation of a proposal I saw once before here somewhere.
Level 1, 2 & 3 change from 2Lt, 1Lt and Capt to SSgt, TSgt and MSgt for those without mission specialty appointment criteria (pilots, nurses, doctors, lawyers, chaplains etc etc)  those with special appointments go the company grade officer path instead.   Commanders (at whatever level you choose) could appoint members to the appropriate company grade slots if they need to become the pointer.  (squadron commanders, deputies, group/wing staffers etc etc.  I am sure there could also be some tie into the mission specialties... director level mission skills could also end up as company grade officers....ground branch, air branch etc etc.  This creates the doer and pointer breakdown that unoffically exists within the organization.  It gives a little more justification to an NCO program as well as a promotion ability for them thats not tied to remaining an active military participant.

Level 4 & 5 remain primarily field grade appointments; but by leavinig open the SMSgt and CMSgt open the progression path for either existing military appointed NCOS's or those rare folks that dont take up the command, group wing staff positions but want to go the whole game of CAP's senior development program.

mk

[sandman]

The qualification for E-3 is earned with Mitchell, not Spaatz.

....and I should have my argument more clear for you, I apologize, but that's not what I said nor my point friend. Yes, everyone understands that the Mitchell is the minimal cadet achievement to earn RM E-3. You are advanced to E-3 just the same with a Spaatz.

Because this is a "CAP NCO" thread I was trying to justify a valid CAP NCO program for cadets as well as senior members.

In my opinion, it seems that the cadet program just blows through the enlisted ranks without pause as to the contributions that a well trained NCO has for "deck plate" (USN term) leadership.

Reading through the achievement books and proctoring advancement tests gave me a perspective as to what form of leadership CAP is attempting to inculcate into cadet minds while at the same time understanding, to a certain degree, how pre-adolescent and adolescent minds behave.

Having been a non-commissioned officer myself decades ago, I recognize the leadership style promulgated through the CAP cadet program paired with the learning styles of teens is simply more conducive to a NCO Corps structure. Many say that to be a good officer, one needs to first be an enlisted member (go mustangs!). There are many more subtleties that could be said here, but I would digress too far from the main point. After all, this is just an exercise in thought and my opinion.

So, in my opinion, in a "stroke-of-the-pen" move, CAP should shift the cadet rank program to an all NCO corps system. The only changes to the achievement material and tests would be a change in a few key words such as "officer" to read "non-commissioned officer".

[Ned]

Because this is a "CAP NCO" thread I was trying to justify a valid CAP NCO program for cadets as well as senior members.

I have Good News for you!  CAP has an outstanding cadet NCO program.  It is found in Phases I and II of our existing program.

In my opinion, it seems that the cadet program just blows through the enlisted ranks without pause as to the contributions that a well trained NCO has for "deck plate" (USN term) leadership.

I think I hear your point, but the reality is that relatively few cadets (~ 15%) receive their Mitchell Awards and become cadet officers in any event.  The great majority of cadets "top out" as cadet NCOs and receive the appropriate training.

(We can and should do better in moving more cadets into the officer ranks to take advantage of the training and leadership experiences available in P-II and P-IV.)

Having been a non-commissioned officer myself decades ago, ( . . .) Many say that to be a good officer, one needs to first be an enlisted member (go mustangs!).

Then it sounds like you agree with our doctrine - we do require all cadets to progress through the NCO ranks before becoming cadet officers.  CAP's CP is unique in that regard among mainstream youth leadership programs like the Young Marines and the USAC.

So, in my opinion, in a "stroke-of-the-pen" move, CAP should shift the cadet rank program to an all NCO corps system. The only changes to the achievement material and tests would be a change in a few key words such as "officer" to read "non-commissioned officer".

I think you greatly underestimate the complexity and effort required to completely redo our successful leadership curricula, which was created and implemented as comprehensive progression from airman through cadet colonel and the Spaatz Award.  We have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours in creating materials appropriate both for NCO and officer leadership styles.  One of the strengths of our program is that cadets who stick with it and complete the program are taught and expected to perform as leaders from the element level through squadron cadet command and beyond.

But more importantly, I don't think you have yet articulated the "why" of your proposal.  What benefit do we gain by lopping off the last half of the program?  How does restricting our training add value to a proven and successful program?

[sandman]

I have Good News for you!  CAP has an outstanding cadet NCO program.  It is found in Phases I and II of our existing program.

What a swell guy, thanks for the the enlightenment Ned.

What benefit do we gain by lopping off the last half of the program?  How does restricting our training add value to a proven and successful program?

I am not advocating "lopping off" any part of the program nor suggesting any restrictions per se. I suggested keeping the didactic curriculum intact from Curry through Spaatz with only minor verbiage mods.

We can and should do better in moving more cadets into the officer ranks to take advantage of the training and leadership experiences available....

Fine. Then let CAP shift to an "all officer" cadet program. Teens like to be the boss and officer "bling" is attractive (a better sense of self-esteem or self-actualization....right SM's?) so cadets may stay in the program longer if they are not initially addressed and treated like....well...cadets.

[lordmonar]

I don't understand where you are going with this.

If you are suggesting that the military change their rules on when they award extra grade.....they can do that at any time.

If you suggesting that we eliminate all officer ranks and restructure when a cadet actually promotes as they complete their achievment and milestones....that is a lot more then a simple change in the verbage.

I have encountered what I think is a misperception of what a Cadet NCO is supposed to be when former military trie to apply Active Duty standards onto the cadets.

Remember that they are only cadets.

[arajca]

I have encountered what I think is a misperception of what a Cadet NCO is supposed to be when former military trie to apply Active Duty standards onto the cadets.

Remember that they are only cadets.

Also, unlike the military, the 'enlisted/nco' path is not a separate path from the 'officer' path. The 'enlisted/nco' path is a feeder to the 'officer' path. All cadet officers have progressed through the NCO ranks, VERY unlike the military were only a statistically insignificant few officers have even done part of the nco ranks. Too many of the CAP NCO's forget this, or worse actively discourage cadets from progressing beyond C/CMSgt, and work hard at imparting the "NCO = Godlike being, Officer = dirt" attitude.

We have too many 'career cadet chiefs' because they have the mistaken idea that in CAP a cadet chief carries the same weight as a military chief (E-9, pick your flavor).

[Ned]

LT/CPT/Maj,

First, thank you for your service.  It is genuinely appreciated.

(And BTW, quite an "edit" there.)

I am not advocating "lopping off" any part of the program nor suggesting any restrictions per se. I suggested keeping the didactic curriculum intact from Curry through Spaatz with only minor verbiage mods.

OK, maybe I misunderstood you when you wrote:

So, in my opinion, in a "stroke-of-the-pen" move, CAP should shift the cadet rank program to an all NCO corps system.

But my questions remain:  How does your change add value to our current program?  What benefit does this change provide?

Fine. Then let CAP shift to an "all officer" cadet program. Teens like to be the boss and officer "bling" is attractive (a better sense of self-esteem or self-actualization....right SM's?) so cadets may stay in the program longer if they are not initially addressed and treated like....well...cadets.

My sense is that there may be some sarcasm in here, because otherwise I am having a hard time following you.  I didn't think you were suggesting that we eliminate our "followership phase" (P-I), or were you?

None of the research in retention I have seen would indicated that "officer bling" is a significant factor in retaining cadets; indeed I would expect much higher retention rates if that were the case.  It bears repeating that only about 15% of our cadets earn the Mitchell.

Our retention, as bad as it is, seems about on line with other youth programs in our demographic.  Part of it is that teens simply move on to other activities at that stage in their life.  And of course, part of it is that we need to do a better job at improving the "Tuesday night experience."  Units with meetings that suck ("uh, the instructor didn't show again, so drill around the parking lot.") have sucky retention rates. Units with dynamic, "hands-on" activities and interesting classes and events have much better retention rates.

Go figure.

But nothing I've seen relates any retention factors as to whether we have an "all NCO" or even an "all officer" cadet program.

[sandman]

Ned, et al,
Gentlemen, Fair enough. I concede your point.

None of the research in retention I have seen would indicated that "officer bling" is a significant factor in retaining cadets; indeed I would expect much higher retention rates if that were the case.  It bears repeating that only about 15% of our cadets earn the Mitchell.

Again, fair enough. I submit that there is a great paucity in that area of research, but so be it.

retention, as bad as it is, seems about on line with other youth programs in our demographic.  Part of it is that teens simply move on to other activities at that stage in their life.

I concur completely. It partially bears to the fact that the CAP program does not offer youth the experiences they need/want/desire. Most likely the way youth are raised these days shares "blame", and then throw in the mix current technologies of virtual reality, IM, texting, lack of parenting, laws preventing punishment, etc, etc, etc. I blame Nintendo...

But my questions remain:  How does your change add value to our current program?  What benefit does this change provide?

Good questions. How does having a senior member NCO program add value?

I suppose in my altered reality of CAP with my narrowed permutations of the cadet program, I believed that providing a more tangible reward for completing the advancement programs such as sewing on large stripes to BDU and dress blue sleeves would be in line with winning a trophy at a sports event. The logic, if there is any to be had, follows that something hard to earn is more cherished than something that is quickly passed by...one test and you pin on the next rank.

Then again, as alluded to previously, this generation of youth (and adults for that matter) are suckled by the instant satisfaction of this age. Which in reality, is probably the root cause for floundering youth programs such as CAP.

[Ned]

How does having a senior member NCO program add value?

In at least a couple of ways:

1.  As I have mentioned a couple of times before, NCOs lead and act like NCOs; officers lead and act like officers.  As a fellow Army guy, I hope you would agree.  Since many - if not most - of our cadets are NCOs, it follows that they would benefit from role models who act and lead like NCOs for at least the P-II portion of the program.  (Yes, we have a terrific cadet program now that functions without NCO role-models; but think how much better it could be if we had a high-speed NCO or two in every cadet and composite unit.)

2.  Restoring the full role of NCOs to CAP (similar to our original status) will help make CAP a more functional military/paramilitary (pick one for the later argument) operation.  Every military organization since the Romans has operated with both officers and NCOs.  There is a reason for that.  Sure, we have been able to meet mission for a lot of years without a full NCO component, but again, think how much more effective we can be.

I suppose in my altered reality of CAP with my narrowed permutations of the cadet program, I believed that providing a more tangible reward for completing the advancement programs such as sewing on large stripes to BDU and dress blue sleeves would be in line with winning a trophy at a sports event.

You know that we used to do exactly that, right?  I spent a significant amount of time sewing stripes onto my uniforms WIWAC.  Learned to sew fairly well between that and wing patches.  I'm not sure we noticed any signficant change one way or another when we adopted the USAF pin-ons for enlisted ranks.

[sandman]

Ned,
Fair enough. Already conceded to your point(s).

A vitalized SM NCO Corps would certainly be beneficial. I recant suggestions of altering the cadet program.

[JC004]

Would we need to have something like the AF system of apprentice, journeyman, etc., modifying our current PD structure?

[AirDX]

Would we need to have something like the AF system of apprentice, journeyman, etc., modifying our current PD structure?

We already do.  Technician, Senior, Master ratings.

[FW]

Re-instituting a CAP SM NCO component program may help the cadet program and, Ned has made a good argument for it. However, is it worth the use of our limited resources to develop and implement and, maintain another PD program?  I'm not sure. 

There were non prior military CAP SM NCO's when I was a cadet.  They served as supply officers and basic tac officers for cadet basic (Curry) flights.  These senior members were former cadets under the age of 21.  To my knowledge, there wasn't a formal NCO training or PD program for these membrers.  All the former military members were officers in my squadron (and group).  The CAP NCO's were good at what they did and, seemed to haze train cadets in their own special way... Let's just say things were different back then.  (There were also over 75,000 members in CAP)

In a time when funding is in question and, membership numbers have been stuck at about 60,000 members for the last 20 or so years, I think we need to ask how a "vital NCO program" will help change these numbers for the better. 

(BTW; shouldn't we be calling the program a "Sergeants Track" as, all grades in CAP are NON commissioned.)?

[RiverAux]

In a time when funding is in question and, membership numbers have been stuck at about 60,000 members for the last 20 or so years, I think we need to ask how a "vital NCO program" will help change these numbers for the better. 

I've got no problem with spending a little time and resources examining whether or not we need the "program" as it now stands.  We should do that periodically for just about everything. 

And if its decided that we want to keep NCOs but give them some real purpose, I'm fine with that.  If we want to see if that does anything to bring in new members or increase the value of the existing members that is ok by me.  However, I wouldn't go all out developing a major PD program just for NCOs.  Lets first see if we can find a real use for the NCOs we have now at the ranks they have now . If that works, lets expand it.  If it doesn't move the needle on anything, get rid of the NCO ranks entirely and simplify some CAP regulations for a change.

[BillB]

When I went on AD in the AF, I was a CAP SSgt. being a former cadet under 21. Made for interesting barracks inspections when hanging uniform shirts wore e-3 and at the end with the civilian clothing was a uniform short with SSgt stripes. Most NCOs at that time were former cadets under age 21 or former military. the NCO grades were promotable and awarded by the Squadron Commander. So it can be said the CAP NCO's were in a strong position to train cadets and assist senior members in their duty assignments. It was a win-win program for cadets and seniors. On reaching age 21, the majority of the NCOs transferred to officer status.

[JC004]

Would we need to have something like the AF system of apprentice, journeyman, etc., modifying our current PD structure?

We already do.  Technician, Senior, Master ratings.

So it would be the same PD for a different program?  I am trying to understand how this is supposed to work since there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive proposal anywhere.

[RADIOMAN015]

Wow is all I can say   This seems to be such a "hot topic"...

Frankly retired/former military NCO's (and also officers) are not flocking to join Civil Air Patrol.  I highly doubt that any changes in any program(s) is going to change that.

Also for those senior members that have elected to wear their NCO grade, are they complaining about anything involving the current program which warrants change

There's a finite amount of volunteer time and CAP money available.  This is a "non issue" involving a small group of volunteer personnel that only seems to be an issue here on CAPTALK.
RM