Senior member Professional Development/Grade advancement

[ncc1912]

My personal opinion is that the rank structure is the least of our worries when it comes the "senior"/professional development program.  CAP would benefit more from a revamp in the training than a change in the rank structure.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of utilizing the ranks of flight officer, but only as a precursor to officer ranks.  It is only fair considering CAP officers do not earn a commission.  They could be used similar to the rank of midshipman that the Navy used to use before an officer became a lieutenant or (eventually) an ensign.  Also, members joining with a Bachelor's or higher and applying for a position in their area of study could be given advance progression.

Our new seniors should progress through the FO ranks for a period of 12-18 months prior to becoming a second lieutenant.  There progression should be based on advancements and achievements in their specialty track until they've earned a technician rating and professional development.  When complete they can earn their "commission" as a second lieutenant in the CAP.

We should be using formal correspondence/in-residence courses to train our seniors in their respective specialty tracks.  Wing and Region staff in specialty track positions should be serving as 'functional managers' writing the curriculum for these courses.  This way, everyone in the wing gets the same information and training and soon there will be no excuses for why "we don't do it that way in my unit."

As far as the rank not being commensurate with the job, perhaps we can tag rank restrictions to staff and command positions, another possibility, is tie the rank of the commander directly to the number of members he/she commands.  Staff officers will be locked into specific ranks:  lieutenants/captains for squadrons and majors/lieutenant colonel/colonels for wings, all depending on size.

If you think about it, a group commander in California can command as many members as the wing commander of Delaware, so, in my eyes, that group commander is just as entitled to the rank of colonel as the wing commander of Delaware.  The same would hold true for the wing commander of California.  Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board and/or National Executive Committee.

The National Commander's rank should depend on the number of members in CAP and be reviewed annually by the Air Force at the beginning of the fiscal year.  He/She should not be demoted based on membership numbers, but promotion would be possible.

I would set the command thresholds as follows:
RANK                            MEMBERSHIP
Second Lieutenant         5 or less
First Lieutenant             5 - 15
Captain                        15 - 45
Major                           45 - 75
Lieutenant Colonel          75 - 200
Colonel                         200 - 1000
Brigadier General            1000 - 20000
Major General                20000 - 30000
Lieutenant General         30000 - 50000
General                        50000 or more

Vice commanders would be the rank of the highest rank held by a subordinate commander.

Pilots (provided no other staff position held) would be promoted to second lieutenant when they earn their wings (form 5 check ride, etc.) and based on hours after that.

Observers (provided no other staff position held) would be promoted to second lieutenant when they earn their wings and based on hours after that.

Staff officers would be promoted based on skill level as long as their command level warrents it.  Therefore, if you start out as second lieutenant with a technician rating at a squadron and never accept a position at group or wing in the same specialty track commensurate with your skill level (provided you advance through your specialty) don't count on being promoted unless your unit gets substantially larger.

Doctors, Lawyers, Chaplains, Accountants, etc. would need professional development training and a course in their specialty track duties and applicable regulations, but should come in as no less than captain upon completion.

Prior service members' military knowledge is invaluable and should be acknowledged through the award of the rank they hold/last held.  These individuals should be strongly considered for command/staff positions commensurate with their rank, but not required to take on these duties to retain their rank.  ...They've served their time!

You are going to have seniors who join and just want to be grunts.  :clap:  To them, I say, "thank you."  CAP needs enlisted.  They still need specialty track training and professional development courses, but they will probably never leave the squadron level.  They should be promoted based on time-in-service through SrA (technician) and a combination of time-in-service, time-in-grade, and specialty track/professional development promotion testing from SSgt through MSgt.  SMSgts and CMSgts will be promoted by the wing commander or designee only.

With all this, I think that the AD and Reservists would better be able to relate to our rank structure and we would avoid a lot of confusion.

[dwb]

Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board

Which is why even the Commander of Rhode Island Wing is a Colonel.  The advanced grade afforded to commanders has to do with the responsibilities at their echelon, rather than the raw number of members under their command.

I have a problem tying grade to numbers for two reasons.  First, a senior member will probably serve at a minimum of 2-3 echelons, and possibly numerous units over a wide geographic area, during their time in CAP.  Trying to adjust their grade accordingly gets confusing.  Also, you're building an inherent bias toward more heavily populated areas.  A senior member making great things happen in Wyoming will still never make the grade that a mediocre New York City Group Commander can make.  Trying to create some sort of "per capita" adjustment on the number requirements is just silly.

While the current culture and regulations surrounding senior member promotions and professional development isn't perfect, it's also not so broken as to require a complete overhaul.  Grade is one of the few perks that can be given to members that chip in, complete their training, and serve in command and staff positions.   I don't want to remove that.

[ncc1912]

Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board

Trying to create some sort of "per capita" adjustment on the number requirements is just silly.

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would us it in a war.   

[dwb]

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

I'm hesitant to pull out the "we're not the Air Force" card here, but it is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.  CAP is organized strictly by geographic area, and the special appointment grades reflect that (Wing/Region = Col, Group = Maj, Squadron = 1st Lt / Capt).  Since Wing CCs provide direct governance for the organization, they should be afforded a rank commensurate with that responsibility.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Well, I meant that some people will move between squadrons, groups, and wings during their tenure in CAP.  I started in a squadron, moved to group, moved to a different squadron, back to group, I'm sure I'll be at wing someday, and probably right back in a squadron, etc.  Tying my grade to the echelon I'm at means I'll be bouncing up and down over the years (and it will detach my grade from the professional development I've completed, which I consider a disadvantage).

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

Yes, but tying grade directly to size of command creates a rank ceiling for sparsely populated areas.  Hence the Wyoming example; WYWG will never have the number of members NYC or Long Island Group can potentially have.  They just can't.  It's physically impossible.  That was my point.

So you can have a great WYWG senior member that completes Level V and runs the biggest squadron in the Wing and does a million other things, and still, he can only make Captain at best.  Why put that restriction on him?

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would use it in a war.   

Now you're really comparing apples and oranges.

I have no problem with making grade correspond to actual training received, or the contribution a member makes to the organization.  I just don't think it should be tied to how many people happen to live in your area.

[ZigZag911]

First, a  possible solution to the current debate...rather than link the grade to raw numbers of members, why not base it on membership as percentage of area population.

For instance, in a town of 1000 people, a 50 member unit would be a hefty 5% of the population....whereas in a town of 10000, it would be 0.5%.

I'll leave the breakdown of ranks to you folks!

[ncc1912]

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

I'm hesitant to pull out the "we're not the Air Force" card here, but it is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.  CAP is organized strictly by geographic area, and the special appointment grades reflect that (Wing/Region = Col, Group = Maj, Squadron = 1st Lt / Capt).  Since Wing CCs provide direct governance for the organization, they should be afforded a rank commensurate with that responsibility.

Why not pull the "we're not the Air Force" card?  It is used just as frequently and conveniently as our designation as the USAF Auxiliary, but that is not my point. 

To use an analogy, the districts of the US House of Representatives are geographically organized, as well.  In addition to their geographical location, though, they are also demographically organized based on population.

Also, commensurate is defined as "having a common measure" or "corresponding in size or degree or extent."  Currently, what is the common measure?  It isn't geographical size.  It isn't membership numbers or even state population.  The only thing that is in common is the state name in every wing commander's title.

Their governance, or authority, if you will, is derived from the position not the rank.  Besides, under this fictional system there would still be no wing commanders of a rank less than colonel unless RI happens to slip below 200, but even then, the commander wouldn't be demoted... The next commander would just be a lieutenant colonel.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Well, I meant that some people will move between squadrons, groups, and wings during their tenure in CAP.  I started in a squadron, moved to group, moved to a different squadron, back to group, I'm sure I'll be at wing someday, and probably right back in a squadron, etc.  Tying my grade to the echelon I'm at means I'll be bouncing up and down over the years (and it will detach my grade from the professional development I've completed, which I consider a disadvantage).

First, I don't see the "disadvantage," but, secondly, your argument is based on the assumption that you would be demoted once you have been promoted ignoring the statment in the original post, "He/She should not be demoted based on membership numbers, but promotion would be possible."

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

Yes, but tying grade directly to size of command creates a rank ceiling for sparsely populated areas.  Hence the Wyoming example; WYWG will never have the number of members NYC or Long Island Group can potentially have.  They just can't.  It's physically impossible.  That was my point.

So you can have a great WYWG senior member that completes Level V and runs the biggest squadron in the Wing and does a million other things, and still, he can only make Captain at best.  Why put that restriction on him?

Yes, it could potentially create a ceiling, but that is dependant solely on the recruiting effors in the wing.

Based on an national average of 1 member for every five thousand citizens, Wyoming should only have about 100 members.  Instead they have just short of 300, similar to VT and RI.  ... You were talking about apples and oranges?

And remember:  the "restriction" is self-imposed if this were the system in which we operated.

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would use it in a war.   

Now you're really comparing apples and oranges.

I have no problem with making grade correspond to actual training received, or the contribution a member makes to the organization.  I just don't think it should be tied to how many people happen to live in your area.

Try not to confuse analogy with homology.

[dwb]

hmmm... I'm going to take a step back here.

What is the problem?  What is the background/justification indicating that issues exist that require changes of this magnitude?  What are some of the possible ways to address the problem?

Now, how does your recommended solution address those problems?  What are the benefits and drawbacks to your proposal?

I suspect reasonable minds will disagree on whether the answers to the questions I have posed justify basically scraping the current grade/professional development approach.

For whatever nitpick things I could point out in the proposed solution, I'm still hung up on why we're discussing solutions to begin with.

[pixelwonk]

*Bump*

I considered starting a new topic about this since it's come up again in current conversations, but I thought it would be fair to include the already stated opposing arguments.

I've moderately ascribed to the idea that grade be tied to position, but it's taken a few years to really sink in. Almost one year to the day, we're talking about it again here, as well as the other august CAP related forum, CadetStuff. Must have some importance, eh?

Some would say that folks don't want to give up their oak leaves and I'd agree with that, ...somewhat. I do know something about this, as I've recently done it myself.

After 5 years of wearing train tracks and oak leaves, I've chosen to wear 1st Lt bars again, happily.  Like others who have discussed the idea of having flight officer grades across the entire class of SM membership, I favor the idea. I'm a realist, however, so I'm simply working what we have in my own way. 

Currently I'm a Wing staffer.  I've been one for about half my time in CAP, as well as a squadron staffer, up to the position of Deputy. I haven't been in command of a unit yet, although the opportunity presented itself when family and work obligations precluded me from talking the hot seat. I haven't spent any time working an encampment, which is also something I'd like to do in the future.  Without any real The buck stops here type of jobs, how could I just keep going up?  The individuals who I have the most respect for have all held command duties, and I believe they came out of their jobs with a healthy amount of life experience from the position. OTOH, I've seen a fair share of real choads wearing gold and silver oak leaves, who imply common sense, bearing, trustworthiness, whathaveyou, simply because they wear the leaves.  In my opinion, they never should have skated past 1st Lt.

Anyway, it seemed hypocritical of myself to not walk the walk, so I did what I could within the system that I have.

Causing change such as tying grade to responsibility may seem impossible. How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.

[Dragoon]

As a side comment if someone is going to play the "We're not the Air Force (or military)" card on the issue of grade, it's fair to respond:

"Fine, then eliminate Air Force (or military) grade insignia entirely!"

Problem solved.

[pixelwonk]

Not really.

Eliminating military rank and insignias from CAP is not the be all to end all.  It's probably a reasonable estimation to say that the majority of CAP members believe that CAP grade means nothing, yet they invested their precious time and energy to get it.

With that in mind, it should improve morale to restructure the CAP grade system. To achieve this:

• All CAP members are challenged further by Professional development
• Members are still rewarded for their efforts via CAP distinctive flight officer grades
• Those aspiring to command at all levels would pursue real command specialty tracks and be rewarded with traditionally commissioned grades. Thus, commissioned grades at all echelons would carry weight, not just Corporate officers.

[Capt M. Sherrod]

How do you propose to challenge members further through Professional Development when it is already a challenge to get them to take the Professional Development we have now?  And I'm talking about both the death by powerpoint courses and the 20 yr old material in the AFIADL courses.

[pixelwonk]

To answer your question with a question, If Pro Dev is unsatisfactory, then why leave things the same?  Many are bored with what we currently have, suggesting that Professional development needs to be revamped over time. ...And yes, made more challenging, more interesting, and presented by people who are as zealous about Pro Dev as some are about the color orange.

I don't propose to have all the answers.  Heck, even if I had some of the answers I'd spend my time actually fleshing out ideas rather than frittering away my hours on forum boards. 

   

[Capt M. Sherrod]

Please don't misunderstand my question - I completely agree with you that PD needs to be revamped.  I was simply curious as to if you had some thoughts / suggestions on the matter. 

I have been in the program long enough to have sat through the death by powerpoint SLS and CLC and then taught at the "new SLS".  While it is still heavy on powerpoint, it is a vast improvement over the former version.  I think that it is important for members of other squadrons to get together and work through problems together.  This allows for camaraderie and networking so you know some people when questions come up and you don't get the answers you need from your chain of command.  I think it gives you a valuable perspective of the larger organization, outside of each person's own squadron.

As far as the AFIADL courses are concerned (CAP Specific), I think that NHQ should spend some serious time in not coming up with alternatives (UCC or TLC in lieu of CAPSOC) but rather, take the time to properly update the material.  Honestly, how is someone supposed to take the course serious when Al Gore, the father of the internet, is still the Vice-President.

I would like to work with you and any of the other PD folks on this forum to help augment some change and arrive at some better material.  Thank you for your thoughts. 

[dwb]

Looking back over my posts in this thread, I've learned something.  It has to do with Incrementalists vs. Completionists.

I'm an incrementalist.  I want to make a little progress every day, move forward a little bit every day, and eventually make things better.  Completionists see a soup to nuts revolutionary solution, and it's useless for me to poke holes in it with my evolutionary frame of mind.

I'm just not going to agree to such a fundamental change, because I know it won't happen.  I advocate things like making professional development better, and training commanders, and making them more accountable for the performance of their units... things that are achievable improvements.

The fundamental, philosophical breaking of rank from PD is a pipe dream to me, it's too much.  It's not that I'm resistant to change, it's that I'm looking for a solution that we can get to from here.  Why argue about things that won't happen, because the political landscape (or even our parent service) won't allow it?

But that's just me.  Some people are dreamers, and that's good, because we need dreamers.  I recognize the importance of dreamers, because someone needs to think about 10-15 years from now, or we'll be hosed when then becomes now.

In the mean time... this is all just crazy talk.  Besides, I just spent all that money and time sewing on oak leaves a couple months ago, I don't want to change it again so soon.

[SarDragon]

All of the CAP formal training would improve if there was an instructor training program in place. The lesson material and visual aids are usable, but many of the folks using them are untrained. That, to me, is a much better cause to spend out time and effort on.

[pixelwonk]

Looking back over my posts in this thread, I've learned something.  It has to do with Incrementalists vs. Completionists.

I'm an incrementalist.  I want to make a little progress every day, move forward a little bit every day, and eventually make things better.  Completionists see a soup to nuts revolutionary solution, and it's useless for me to poke holes in it with my evolutionary frame of mind

I'm just not going to agree to such a fundamental change, because I know it won't happen.  I advocate things like making professional development better, and training commanders, and making them more accountable for the performance of their units... things that are achievable improvements.

The fundamental, philosophical breaking of rank from PD is a pipe dream to me, it's too much.  It's not that I'm resistant to change, it's that I'm looking for a solution that we can get to from here.  Why argue about things that won't happen, because the political landscape (or even our parent service) won't allow it?

But that's just me.  Some people are dreamers, and that's good, because we need dreamers.  I recognize the importance of dreamers, because someone needs to think about 10-15 years from now, or we'll be hosed when then becomes now.

In the mean time... this is all just crazy talk.  Besides, I just spent all that money and time sewing on oak leaves a couple months ago, I don't want to change it again so soon.

There's a lot of crazy talk going on here these days.  Some would have you sewing your gold oak leaves onto a boy scout uniform.

Admittedly, what we're discussing here is too much.  It simply won't happen any time soon, if at all. But anybody who has read this thread has just heard of somebody who has agreed with it to the point of demoting his own grade to further the idea.  To me, that's doing more than most, and it's a start. At the very least, I'm doing what I feel is right for me.  At the most, who knows?

Pipe-dream changes can only start with "I knew of this one guy who" types of conversations. Or a lot of money.  I don't have that, but I do have your ear. 

[pixelwonk]

All of the CAP formal training would improve if there was an instructor training program in place. The lesson material and visual aids are usable, but many of the folks using them are untrained. That, to me, is a much better cause to spend out time and effort on.

Word! 
Perhaps the teachers who we give Capt bars to and are then underutilized could be put into an instructor specialty track. They could be used for curriculum developers, instructors and instructor trainers.

[floridacyclist]

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

As a "Senior Member" I'll second that.  I also dislike the term "Senior Member Without Grade."
I don't expect to be an officer from day one, but how about "Airman" or something like that?

We call our folks "Officer Candidates" until they pin something on besides "CAP"

[dwb]

but I do have your ear. 

Ahhh!  Give my ear back, you thief!  Now I have to sew that back on, too!

[Ricochet13]

Perhaps the teachers who we give Capt bars to and are then underutilized could be put into an instructor specialty track. They could be used for curriculum developers, instructors and instructor trainers.

It would be interesting to see the numbers regarding professional educators who have received special appointment to 1LT, CPT, and MAJ nationally.  Might very well be an untapped source of expertise regarding instructor training.  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.