Main Menu

NCO

Started by pantera3110, March 09, 2015, 03:26:08 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions. 

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Storm Chaser

I don't think that's an unreasonable goal, although it would take many years (decades?) to accomplish, as long-time CAP members usually stick around for many years.

LSThiker

Quote from: lordmonar on April 15, 2015, 05:20:03 PM
That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions.

Which to me just makes sense.  You top out as a CMSgt instead of a Lt Col (generally speaking) as you should be a technical expert in your field for CAP.  But I guess everyone's position will be different.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 15, 2015, 05:31:02 PM
I don't think that's an unreasonable goal, although it would take many years (decades?) to accomplish, as long-time CAP members usually stick around for many years.

True, unless you do a mass "demotion" and state that all Lt Cols except XYZ in XYZ staff positions are CMSgt (or whatever rank) and must switch rank by 01 Jan 2020.

FW

Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: FW on April 15, 2015, 07:11:35 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Storm Chaser

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on April 16, 2015, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: FW on April 15, 2015, 07:11:35 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."

Or even flight officers, which would be even more distinctive. I know warrant/flight officer grades have been discussed before, but it's not a bad idea. It would certainly address a lot of the concerns discussed on this board. We could either eliminate officer grades completely or make them temporary and only while holding certain command or staff positions.

Panache

Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 16, 2015, 03:19:21 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on April 16, 2015, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: FW on April 15, 2015, 07:11:35 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."

Or even flight officers, which would be even more distinctive. I know warrant/flight officer grades have been discussed before, but it's not a bad idea. It would certainly address a lot of the concerns discussed on this board. We could either eliminate officer grades completely or make them temporary and only while holding certain command or staff positions.

Well, that would make sense.  Five warrant / flight officer grades and five levels of professional development.  You gain a flight officer grade for each level of professional development.  For example, Level I = Flight Officer.  Level II = Technical Flight Officer.  Level III = Senior Flight Officer.  Level IV = Master Flight Officer.  Level V = Chief Flight Officer.

For what it's worth, if word from NHQ came down to me saying "Hey, Captain, we know you've been doing several different jobs in both your Squadron and Group, but since you don't have a college degree, you're being demoted to NCO status / can not progress in the officer PD program anymore", that'll be the day I turn in my CAPID and move on.

Storm Chaser

I doubt CAP would ever demote some of our members for missing a new requirement.

ProdigalJim

I wrote something like this back in 2012 when we were arguing about our CAP/CC not having a degree, and I still feel this way. Apart from Ned's excellent analysis earlier in the thread, I really believe that part of the "debate" goes back to your own philosophy on what a college education is FOR. Is it to train for a trade or profession, or is it to improve your depth of knowledge, broaden your perspective and sharpen your reasoning skills? Neither view is BETTER and both views have merit, but they clearly begin in a different place and lead to vastly different conclusions about the utility and relevance of a degree to CAP.

Even so, regardless of where you stand on the "what's it for" question, I'm genuinely mystified by the outright blanket derision some people here seem to have for degrees and, by extension, for those who hold them.

It truly boils down to whether you consider a degree just another vocational/trade qualification, like a Commercial Driver's License, a Barber's License, an RN, an NREMT-P, etc., or  instead consider it as something more.

I happen to believe in the idea of education as a means of improving your ability to think, to reason, to understand, to challenge and to grow. Really. And I think culturally and practically the USAF wants officers leaders who can think, reason, understand, challenge and grow, and who can encourage those things in those whom they lead.

As much as many of us don't want to believe it, I think the unspoken but real conflict the AF has with us as "officers" is that often we don't share the same cultural underpinning. Look at LSTHiker's post with the degree stats: the fewer experiences we have in common with AF officers, the less likely we are to be accepted as peers...and when we wear blues with officer grade on them, we are outwardly claiming, at some level, that we're "peers."

I didn't take "Underwater Basket Weaving." But here are some of the "useless" courses I took: European History, Medieval History, American History, Military History, Money and Banking, Economics 1, Economics 2, the History of Political Thought, Statistics 1, English Composition , Advanced English Composition, Principles of International Trade, Monetary Systems, Revolutions and Reform, Comparative Religion.

Because I took those things, I am aware of how political movements have formed and fared over the years...I know how Europe has been shaped by dynasty and the clash of nobility over centuries...I'm familiar with the conflicting ideas and threads that kicked off the Protestant reformation and how those conflicts and ideas remain unresolved today...I'm not mystified by how banking works...or how economic policy is made, managed and mismanaged and how politicians who want my vote handle those questions. I can balance a checkbook...build a spreadsheet to analyze the pros and cons of a business plan...interpret budget documents...read complex reports enough to formulate questions about them, so I can learn more.

I have a lens with which to view the world around me. There are many things I don't know, but the world around me doesn't baffle me the way it otherwise would. I can write a coherent sentence, organize my thoughts and make myself understood.

None of the above are "useless" skills. All of the above can be acquired in different ways. College is just one of those ways, and it happens to be a pretty efficient and streamlined way to do it. Many of these skills I have since honed dramatically in 30 years of professional life. But the fact that I built the foundation for knowing these things in a collegiate setting doesn't NEGATE the value of knowing those things or of learning the skills needed to enable me to learn more.

And just to add the final irony...I learned all of those things in my CORE classes, that everyone who wants to graduate had to take. NOT in my major, which was...wait for it...Art History. Really. And I've been gainfully employed every day of my life since I was 16 and never lived in my Mom's basement and never worked at McDonald's, even though I was raised by a single mother on a military disability pension.

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.
Jim Mathews, Lt. Col., CAP
VAWG/XP
My Mitchell Has Four Digits...

JeffDG

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 16, 2015, 12:53:04 PM
Even so, regardless of where you stand on the "what's it for" question, I'm genuinely mystified by the outright blanket derision some people here seem to have for degrees and, by extension, for those who hold them.

OK, so I have a degree...but I've not seen anyone show "outright blanket derision" of people with degrees.

What I object to, in the strongest possible terms, is the sense of elitism that some people attach to degrees.  That a university degree is the only way to have a broad intellectual experience.  That's demonstrably false.  It is one path to education, but far, far from the only one.

The "derision" seems to go the opposite way from what you seem to think.  And for someone who claims that their education has given them critical thinking skills, your comment quoted above challenges that claim quite effectively.

AirAux

With my several degrees, I have found one thing common in all.  I was excited to begin, I knew what the end was and I worked hard and enjoyed it all.  BUT, it was truly anti-climatic walking across that stage and receiving the degrees.  It was about the friendships and learning of the subject matter, at least enough to ace the tests.  I find I am still a very common man, with very little if any ego.  I do feel I am fairly intelligent, but I always did, even before school.  I still put my pants on one leg at a time with a little help sometimes.  Once, I did put both legs on at the same time just to do it, but that was a long time ago in a place far, far away.  I have usually found that teh ones that make a big thing out of their degrees are usually not worth the time or effort.  I value a person for integrity.  I value a person for honesty.  I value a person for their decency.  I value a person for their common sense, which unfortunately they don't teach.  A degree is nothing more than a tool and a [darn] poor one in the hands of an idiot.

sarmed1

The point of the degree requirement (regardless of where you are) is that it is, like mentioned, a one stop shop and for the organization requiring it and a one stop "check box" for the experiences/knowledge they are looking to "ensure" the individual has. (it isnt a guarantee, but at least a higher than likely possibility)

The issue I take with some of the posts (and this is one I see both militarily and in the civilian job) the leadership=management confusion.  They are not the same thing.  In my experience, a college degree prepares you for management, very few (at least in the degree department) make you or even prepare you to be a good leader. 

It has been my long standing opinion, that in most cases this is the difference between NCO's and officers.  Most NCO's are leadership specialists; officers are more managing experts.  (there are exceptions, extremes to either end mind you, obviously a commanding officer has to have a certain amount of leadership ability or should at least and a senior NCO will have more of a managerial side to him) 
More $10 word'ish Officers are/think strategic, NCO's are/think tactical. (again with some, often "air forcey" exceptions, ie rank and file pilots/navs etc)

Other than being undermanned and the having to hold multiple jobs, the average CAP person is a tactical person.  They worry usually just about their piece of the pie, or leading a small group in their small part of the pie.   Regardless of education, this is typically NCO level work.  Changing the rank structure or its requirements will likely not impact very much on how the average CAP person does their job or what job they do.

MK

 
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

FW

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 16, 2015, 12:53:04 PM

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.

Good bottom line, however with my experience with the Air Force, I have yet to see any problems with interactions based on my formal education.  I have also not had a problem with CAP officers because of educational background.  IMHO, it is CAP's responsibility to see our "officers" are trained according to an acceptable standard before placing them in a position of responsibility.  I'd rather see our courses and schools improved, if necessary, to accommodate this.  If we wish to look to the Air Force for such a standard, let the Air Force guide us in obtaining it.  We need to be firmly on the same page with this.  It is not amusing  to many members to hear "we're not getting the respect we want because", when there is absolutely no evidence from big blue to support it.
Just my $.02
 

Tim Day

Quote from: FW on April 16, 2015, 02:54:31 PM
Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 16, 2015, 12:53:04 PM

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.

Good bottom line, however with my experience with the Air Force, I have yet to see any problems with interactions based on my formal education.  I have also not had a problem with CAP officers because of educational background.  IMHO, it is CAP's responsibility to see our "officers" are trained according to an acceptable standard before placing them in a position of responsibility.  I'd rather see our courses and schools improved, if necessary, to accommodate this.  If we wish to look to the Air Force for such a standard, let the Air Force guide us in obtaining it.  We need to be firmly on the same page with this.  It is not amusing  to many members to hear "we're not getting the respect we want because", when there is absolutely no evidence from big blue to support it.
Just my $.02
Concur - and to add, it's our responsibility as an organization to set a culture where the norm is that a Lt Col demonstrates the level of commitment to the organization and accountability that would be expected of an Air Force Lt Col, within the limits of our volunteer status and needs to earn a living, of course.
Tim Day
Lt Col CAP
Prince William Composite Squadron Commander

ZigZag911

Quote from: lordmonar on April 15, 2015, 05:20:03 PM
That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions.

Just to keep the historical aspect of matters under discussion, please recall that CAP lost NCOs in the late 70s or early 80s because the USAF Senior NCO corps did not want our members wearing stripes!

I have no problem with re-establishing NCOs in CAP, including offering the option to non-prior military members...but perhaps it ought to be more related to the member's level of involvement than civilian education.

AirAux

I would like to see "the mubers" on the number of NCO's we lost in the late 70's or early 80's.  I don't think there are any numbers.   Probably a rumor, much like the sunken submarines in WWII.  If soneome refused to be in CAP because they had to be an "officer", they had too many other problems to be any good to our organization and would have been wasted effort...

SarDragon

We "lost" NCOs back then because they were phased out. There were no new NCOs after 1 July 1972, and those folks who were already NCOs at that time could continue to wear their stripes until they were no longer members. NCO promotions were discontinued.

In 1984,they started allowing former military NCOs to wear their rank, but there were still no promotions.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

lordmonar

Can we confirm why we in fact decided to phase out the NCOs?

Like many things "they wanted us to" is often more rumor with a gain of truth....then the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: lordmonar on April 16, 2015, 06:09:09 PM
Can we confirm why we in fact decided to phase out the NCOs?

Like many things "they wanted us to" is often more rumor with a gain of truth....then the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I was around when it happened, assigned to CA Wing HQ. I knew several people who were impacted by it and it was widely discussed.

I have no recollection of it being USAF driven at all, let alone driven by USAF Senior NCOs, as mentioned in another post. Rather, it was largely driven by CAP members.

Some of the reasons: 1) Confusion ensued whenever CAP people visited clubs on military bases. CAP members Bill, Bob, Mary and Jane wanted to stop by for lunch or get a drink - except that Mary was a TSgt. Now what? While the unpaid volunteers saw no problem, military folks might. Then, when they departed, they left military people behind saying "Don't they know how it works?" or "Don't they respect our customs and traditions?" 2) Serious age differences. CAP NCOs came in two flavors: former military or off the street. We also had warrant officers then. Former cadets under 21 with Mitchell or Earhart could start as WO. Former cadets or off the street could go company grade officer or warrant officer or NCO. But - those joining off the street between 18-21 got stripes with very short TIG requirements, which meant we could have 20 year old MSgts, which did look quite odd in the Vietnam era. 3) I'm almost positive that I recall discussion of a study that was done prior to implementation, which was to determine if there was any real difference between what CAP NCOs did and what officers did. Nobody could identify anything in CAP where anyone needed to be one instead of the other.

So, off came the chevrons. I only recall one person who quit over it, but he had just started a business and was looking to phase out of CAP anyway. He didn't leave because he could no longer be an NCO - he left because he was a MSgt, thus having huge fade marks on uniform sleeves and he didn't want to invest in new uniforms for the few months left in his membership year.

Anyway, that's what I remember. I'd be curious to see if the historians have any reports or discussion records on this.
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

SarDragon

People who earned chevrons were not required to remove them. That insignia was permitted for wear until they, for whatever reason, left CAP. There were just no more promotions available.

I looked through all but one of the uni regs from 1972 on, and it doesn't look like they were every totally removed from use. The one I'm missing is after NCOs were reinstated.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret