What to do: NCO or Officer, need some insight

[Ned]

Ummm, cite please.  Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned.  I'll wait.

As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.

So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?

Got it.

Who is the better mentor?  A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.

I guess it depends on who is being mentored, doesn't it?

For the 5% or so of CAP that are currently working on Level IV, I would agree that a Level V Colonel might make the better mentor.  For the other 95% of us, it may well be the NCO.  Especially for the 20,000 or so cadets we are responsible for developing.

So call the NCO concept the "95%" solution if you want.

[grunt82abn]

Ummm, cite please.  Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned.  I'll wait.

As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.

So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?

Got it.

Who is the better mentor?  A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.

I guess it depends on who is being mentored, doesn't it?

For the 5% or so of CAP that are currently working on Level IV, I would agree that a Level V Colonel might make the better mentor.  For the other 95% of us, it may well be the NCO.  Especially for the 20,000 or so cadets we are responsible for developing.

So call the NCO concept the "95%" solution if you want.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Nice!!!

[Eclipse]

So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?

Ned, why not just answer the question instead of getting pedantic about the argument?  In the majority of discussions where you disagree
with the reality of CAP, you try and deflect the argument to the irrelevant, generally ignoring how CAP actually works in day-to-day practice,
and then thank everyone for their service.

I acknowledge there are not current GOs serving in units with SMWOG CCs, however there certianly could be in the current system, and further,
we both know there are full-birds all over CAP who are reporting to unit CC's of lesser grade, even more Lt Cols. This has existed forever in the 75 year history of CAP.

Now, with that irrelevant issue closed...how about an answer to the direct questions no one has answered in the 10+ year history of the
NCO discussion.

Also, the insinuation that NCOs, as a concept, would somehow be better mentors for 12 years olds then the existing members of CAP
who have somehow managed to blunder their way through the task, is an insult to all of them, and I reject it out of hand.

The average prior-service NCO has no more (or less) ability to mentor 12 years olds in a CAP context then the average normal member,
parent, or internally trained person, and IN FACT may suffer from preconceived notions about dealing with adolescents that are colored from their service.

Or if you feel I'm wrong, please CITE the CAP studies that indicate otherwise.  Heck, cite anything relevent to the context...

[Storm Chaser]

CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons? I think not.

We also have many current and former commissioned officers serving in CAP. Are they any less able to mentor, or provide leadership, or put to use their skills than NCOs. Again, I think not.

We're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.

What about our non-prior service members? Are new NCOs better equipped to manage the Cadet Programs or CAP in general than members who have been been doing so for many years? Again, we're making big assumptions here.

I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.

Another thing I have a big problem with is when I ask a Committee member to provide guidance on what my Group NCO's duties and responsibilities should be and the answer I get is "make something up". If I have to make something up to task or keep my Group NCO engaged, then I don't really need a Group NCO, do I? That is the textbook definition of putting the "cart before the horse" or working on "a solution in search of a problem".

[Eclipse]

^^^^ Bam...

[FW]

I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.

I am in agreement.  As a CIVILIAN organization with a military like system of authority, our grade structure is relevant in a vastly different context.  I've seen no polls, surveys, studies, or educated opinions showing that an NCO corps would improve P1 or P2 cadet training, however I've seen a boat load of exit surveys showing we have a dearth of leaders able to handle the retention of our new members; both cadet and seniors. 

If it can be shown a NCO corps can be the answer to increased member retention, leadership, and mission effectiveness, great.  Wishful thinking will not make it so, continued comparison with "the military" will not make it happen, and pandering to current or former NCO's without the "full disclosure" of what we expect, and what CAP "culture" really is, will lead to failure. 

As quite a few have already said, and better than I, this really is putting the cart before the horse.  Bottom line, IMHO, be whatever you want to be.  It won't make a difference; your paycheck will not depend on it, just your uniform...

[Ned]

CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons?

As odd as it may seem, the answer may well be "yes," depending on the context.  Particularly in the area where you serve as a role model exhibiting leadership behaviors.

Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers.  The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same.  Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers.  Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?

Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around.  And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques.  But they cannot be as effective in modeling those techniques. 

Bottom line, we have a successful CP despite a lack of NCOs.  Just think how much better it could be if we had sufficient NCOs to train our cadets.

The great majority of our cadets are studying direct leadership techniques as cadet NCOs.  The best model for NCO leadership styles are successful NCOs.

We're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.

I can't really argue with that.  To paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of the NCOs are going to be "below average."  One of them is going to be the "worst NCO in CAP."  But as you point out, that is exactly true of the officers as well.  Thank goodness we have experienced commanders and CP officers to make appropriate assignments.

I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.

Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point.  My position is that CAP has had NCOs for over 70 years.  They can be an invaluable addition to the CP when it comes to training and mentoring cadets.  I could happily put 1200 or so to work tomorrow, and CP would be a better for it.  The "new program" authorized by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force is essentially just a tweak to the appointments and PD for the NCOs CAP has had for decades.  No more, no less.

[TheSkyHornet]

To Col Lee's point, many cadets are often the "NCOs" of the unit, doing those tasks on behalf of the squadron that would normally be done by an enlisted person. But there is still that limit of cadet NCOs working with senior member officers. It's still not quite the same as having a senior member NCO.

The NCO, as he said, is critical and complimentary to the officer grade. Having a strong NCO corps would really help to avoid that burden of treating an officer in an NCO capacity. I don't that from a respect regard, but in his/her duty assignment.

What we do on the cadet side is train cadets to be NCOs, then progress them to be officers and take on a different role. It's similar to an ROTC training structure, without the time devotion.

I'm an advocate of an NCO corps, whether we promote it to our veterans/current military personnel or assign new civilians to be NCOs on joining. I think a lot of senior members don't really understand the role of NCOs in the military, and therefore it's very difficult to expand that role.

[Storm Chaser]

Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers.  The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same.  Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers.  Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?

Within the military, yes. Within CAP, I'm not so sure.

Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around.  And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques.  But they cannot be as effective in modeling those techniques.

I've been both an NCO and a commissioned officer and I have to respectfully disagree. That said, if we feel that CAP is in desperate need of an NCO corps to function, then why not open the NCO track to non-prior service members now? Why not define the role, duties, and responsibilities of NCOs now? Why not limit our current NCOs to those roles, duties, and responsibilities, and stop the whole "NCOs can do everything an officer can do, except for command"?

Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point.

With all due respect, my post was not directed at you. Why would you make that assumption?

[Flying Pig]

CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons?

As odd as it may seem, the answer may well be "yes," depending on the context.  Particularly in the area where you serve as a role model exhibiting leadership behaviors.

Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers.  The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same.  Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers.  Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?

Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around.  And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques.  But they cannot be as effective in modeling those techniques. 

Bottom line, we have a successful CP despite a lack of NCOs.  Just think how much better it could be if we had sufficient NCOs to train our cadets.

The great majority of our cadets are studying direct leadership techniques as cadet NCOs.  The best model for NCO leadership styles are successful NCOs.

We're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.

I can't really argue with that.  To paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of the NCOs are going to be "below average."  One of them is going to be the "worst NCO in CAP."  But as you point out, that is exactly true of the officers as well.  Thank goodness we have experienced commanders and CP officers to make appropriate assignments.

I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.

Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point.  My position is that CAP has had NCOs for over 70 years.  They can be an invaluable addition to the CP when it comes to training and mentoring cadets.  I could happily put 1200 or so to work tomorrow, and CP would be a better for it.  The "new program" authorized by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force is essentially just a tweak to the appointments and PD for the NCOs CAP has had for decades.  No more, no less.

I was an NCO in the Marines and the Army.  So when I was a CAP 1Lt. leading a Sq. as the commander of a unit that was full of Majors and LTC's... many of which were prior service officers, was I leading as an officer or an NCO?   And all the Majors and LTC's....  what were they leading like?

I love this notion that because you join and select a particular symbol, that its going to have absolutely anything to do with how you "lead" or that because you have a patch on your sleeve that looks like USAF stripes, that you are somehow more effective in modeling techniques.     Hearing all this talk about how amazing the NCO program will be, I vote we just dump the officer ranks all together.  Who would have thought a patch would change how volunteers lead.   In the end, you will ABSOLUTELY NOT be a non-commissioned officer.  You will be a CAP volunteer who thought the stripes looked better on your uniform than the bars. This entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.

[Eclipse]

Who would have thought a patch would change how volunteers lead.   In the end, you will ABSOLUTELY NOT be a non-commissioned officer.  You will be a CAP volunteer who thought the stripes looked better on your uniform than the bars. This entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.

Bam²

[Ned]

I was an NCO in the Marines and the Army.  So when I was a CAP 1Lt. leading a Sq. as the commander of a unit that was full of Majors and LTC's... many of which were prior service officers, was I leading as an officer or an NCO?

I've had the opportunity to watch you in action, and from my perspective you lead appropriately as an officer.  And a good one.

I never had an chance in watch while you were serving as an NCO in the Army or Marines, but I have certainly had a chance to see a couple hundred of them working with their troops during my military career.  And they acted like terrific NCO leaders.

It sounds like we simply disagree on this, but given that militaries have without exception used both NCOs and officers for literally a couple of thousand years at this point, suggests that there is indeed a difference in leadership styles and behaviors.  Regardless of the symbols worn on the collar or sleeve. 

 

This entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.

Look, it's not me you need to convince.  At this point it is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.


Aside to Storm Chaser:  You're right, I did think that was directed at me.  Looking back, I'm not sure why.  My bad.

[Eclipse]

What "militarys" have or have not done is irrelevant to CAP, since CAP doesn't follow the military
model for authority or even training in anything but name, and if it did in the distant past, it certainly
hasn't for the last relevent decade or two.

The question isn't what CAP has or hasn't done in the past, but what those proposing this idea
>want< to do in the future. Lots of blinky lights about the awesomeness of stripes, not much detail on the "why or how".

Repeating the assertion that this was somehow the idea of the SECAF also insinuates he / they
had a complete plan, or at least enough of a framework to have a non-negative enough opinion
to sign it.  The reality is, at least publicly, that the idea of custom insignia, and the allowance for
prior service NCOs to promote internally was all that was presented at the time, with some squishy language
about exploring non-prior service NCOs in the future.

That's.

Done.

And does not need to be repeated over and over as if that answers any of the questions being asked here and now.

Stipulated - CAP has always had NCOs in ranks.

Fact no in dispute, CAP hasn't had a working NCO model in...ever. One might forget that up until
a few years ago, being a "CAP NCO" meant your ID card said "SM", and there was no way to enter the
grade in eServices. SO much for "always having NCOs".

The simple fact remains, some members keep making the assertion that NCOs will be the savior of CAP, Maj Gen Carr
made statements to that effect in the original announcement.

Others ask..."Oh really?...How, exactly?"

The answers presented are irrelevant military history lessons, wishful thinking about recruiting from a pool
that isn't even existent in most of the country and..."reasons".

[Holding Pattern]

I don't think that eServices not tracking things properly is a ringing endorsement of your argument...

[TheSkyHornet]

I don't believe it's a matter of what you wear. It's a matter of your professional development. The training for an NCO versus an officer is completely different because of the functions of those roles.

I spend way too much time listening to commanders teaching you how to become a commander. Everyone that's running these training courses at conferences is a commander/former commander/deputy commander telling you how to progress as an officer and become a commander at some point. That's the impression I get.

But I look at everything from a Cadet Programs standpoint, which is my role. Plain and simple. It's a cycling training program. Nothing less. It's training people to either take a staff role, an NCO role, or an officer role within the CP. A lot of work as far as manpower, but very easy when it comes to structuring. I have NCOs under my; albeit cadets, but NCOs they are. And they perform NCO roles.

One of the challenging things I see in the senior program is that each individual squadron is set up like an Air Force wing. Many units try to fill every role because there is "something for everyone," and now they have a very wide-span operation which can be fairly difficult to control. Officers are very much usable as supporting assistants if their commanders knew how to utilize them. But there isn't that pool of quality NCOs to progress as NCOs and be the heavy lifters in the execution of tasks. It's somewhat a "You're the radio guy, do everything" Comms Officer. I'm sure it varies unit to unit; that's just my observation at a few of the local squadrons. I'm sure there are some squadrons that just nail it.

Maybe it works the way it is, but it's not just about mission success as effective mission success. Can it be done better?

One of the things we talked about over the weekend was "CAP is the best-kept secret in the civilian world." That's unacceptable. The manpower and dedication is out there. Improve internally and promote externally.

[Ned]

What "militarys" have or have not done is irrelevant to CAP, since CAP doesn't follow the military
model for authority or even training in anything but name, and if it did in the distant past, it certainly
hasn't for the last relevent decade or two.

As always, it is interesting how two people can look at the same thing and see it so differently.

The notion that CAP doesn't follow your personal concept of the "military model for authority" is irrelevant.  (Just mirroring your stylistic choices.)

(Actually CAP does pretty much follow the military model of leadership and authority, which is not surprising since we use essentially the same training materials for our leadership classes that Uncle Sam uses, but we can save that debate for the next "CAP is NOT the military thread.)

The lack of a CAP equivalent of a UCMJ simply has nothing to do with the concepts of leadership, leadership styles, mentorship skill sets, etc..  Which is what we have talking about in this thread.

Really.  After all, we employ a military model for authority in the senior program, right?  (Chain of command, discipline for things like insubordination and failure to follow regulations., etc.)  Sure sounds like a military model of authority to me.  And that's just the senior program.  Our cadets actually take an oath to "obey my officers." 

The question isn't what CAP has or hasn't done in the past, but what those proposing this idea
>want< to do in the future. Lots of blinky lights about the awesomeness of stripes, not much detail on the "why or how".

This may be getting to the heart of what you indicate is the "problem."  Obviously you agree that CAP has had NCOs since before your or I were members.  And that's a long time.

Your concern appears to aimed squarely at the intangible:  the proponents' (secret, unstated) "future plans" about blinking lights.

There are, of course, several problems with this particular strawman.

First, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "they" want anything more than to continue to improve an existing aspect of CAP.  Restated, we have NCOs, and apparently this whole hullabaloo is about how they should be promoted and educated.  That's all the "program" that so frightens you is about.  I don't remember the NCOs being overly concerned that last time we improved the officer PD program.

Second, nobody needs to outline the "why and how" of the NCO corps anymore than you had to do for your last promotion to Lt Col.  Seriously.  Both officers and NCOs have been here a long time.  This is genuinely nothing new.  OTOH, if you were proposing to eliminate the NCO ranks, the burden would be on you to explain how that would benefit CAP.

Third, the whole notion that "proponents" have some sort of secret agenda that they "want" in the future seems just a little like Black Helicopter stuff.  As you know, the proponents were (and are) the most senior leaders of the organization.  Volunteers like you and me.

Finally, those who are dismissive of history lessons - military or civilian - seem doomed to repeat errors rather than learn and restructure the organization for success.

[

[abdsp51]

Col Lee,

As a current active duty NCO and also a CAP officer,  I have asked the same questions and there hasn't been anything to substantiate a critical need for a NCO program.  Yes we have always had NCOs, yes there was some major limitations on them and some of that has been fixed to a degree. 

The issue most of the membership and posters have that is yet to be answered with anything of substance is what are they suppose to do?  What are their duties/responsibilities?  What positions are they to fill? 

There is an NCO committee supposedly working on this but the only thing that comes of it is they are planning and working.

This was something conceived by a previous Nat CC and pushed out before he left and supposedly is a pet project of an AF Undersecretary. 

This is something that is being pushed on us and there is no real meat to it other than it will make CAP better, but nothing indicating how it will make CAP better.  The NCO committee wants to try this but yet there is nothing out there other than a manning table,  how to promote and that they can promote. 

In fact here in CAWG we use to have a SMSgt and then he traded those stripes for bars (don't know if that was his choice or what),  that example does do this initiative any good. 

I've asked before and I'll ask again.  How is having NCOs going to make CAP "better" to warrant trying this concept and use it as a recruiting tool to tap into resources that are already there?  What are they going to be expected to do as far as duties, responsibilities, etc?

How is having a CAP NCO going to be better at mentoring, leading, etc that I as an AD NCO also a CAP officer can not do?  The way it seems to me is those in the same category as I am in are perceived as inept to do those very things and those very things are a good chunk of what I have been doing for the last 4 years in 3 squadrons, 3 wings and now currently at a group.

We the membership need something more than "make CAP better", "we are planning", "let us try" to buy into this and sell it. 

I think once the questions that have been asked and there is an answer with more substance to it, you may see more people willing to support this because they want to rather than because they have to. 

I am in no way bashing the committee for something that they seem to be really enthused about but for the rest of us come on give us something more than fluff to bite into. 

I have to agree with some of my counterparts here in that this is a solution looking for a problem.

[Eclipse]

The notion that CAP doesn't follow your personal concept of the "military model for authority"...

It is not "my" model, it is the model.

Please cite the regulations conferring >any< authority to anyone in CAP based on their grade alone.  That is the primary failure
of the grade model in CAP when compared to a "military model".  The second issue is the lack of "up and / or out" which results in
Lt Cols with 50 year badges reporting to 2nd Lts with less then a year.

We haven't had "NCOs" in CAP in recent memory in any way meaningful to this argument - a prior service NCO wearing his stripes
on a CAP uniform is no more a "CAP NCO" then "somebody with a high school diploma" is a CAP officer, to paraphrase the NCO program's
most vocal proponent's incredibly condescending dismissal of the service of thousands of volunteers who are currently keeping
the doors open while they await the "Saviors with Stripes" to come over the hill and fix CAP.

First, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "they" want anything more than to continue to improve an existing aspect of CAP.  Restated, we have NCOs, and apparently this whole hullabaloo is about how they should be promoted and educated.  That's all the "program" that so frightens you is about.  I don't remember the NCOs being overly concerned that last time we improved the officer PD program.

Second, nobody needs to outline the "why and how" of the NCO corps anymore than you had to do for your last promotion to Lt Col.  Seriously.  Both officers and NCOs have been here a long time.  This is genuinely nothing new.  OTOH, if you were proposing to eliminate the NCO ranks, the burden would be on you to explain how that would benefit CAP.

Third, the whole notion that "proponents" have some sort of secret agenda that they "want" in the future seems just a little like Black Helicopter stuff.  As you know, the proponents were (and are) the most senior leaders of the organization.  Volunteers like you and me.

Let's be clear - I'm not "frightened" by this, I am concerned.  Big difference.  Concerned  that a group of well-intentioned members with an agenda that is more about nostalgia
then a workable idea convinced a former national commander to press an idea that wasn't well thought out, and that taken to it's logical conclusion will
cause significant harm to an organization already suffering from issues of mission , purpose, and retention.

Concerned that leaders are so focused on not admitting they took a wrong path that they are willing to call out the very people still keeping the lights
on as less effective then phantom members down the road who will be recruited from a non-existent pool of people who are apparently
all that CAP needs to regain it's former glory, yet can't see past the insignia on their sleeves long enough to sign an application.

Concerned that our leadership believe implementing a caste system of "doers" vs. " managers" is remotely workable in a volunteer organization
where the most basic rules like dress and behavior are all but unenforceable.

As to the black helicopters, no, but clearly there is a full plan sitting on a desk somewhere waiting for approval, and when people ask
what that entails, we get evasive, deflective answers instead of straight talk.

Duty positions are written and waiting for the OPR to publish.   

...and it does not matter that we have had a lot of the things they point out ready to go for nearly a year now.....CAP is slow.   It has always been slow...it probably will always be slow.

We have had a lot of questions we (the NCO committee) just can't answer because the official changes to regs are jammed up in staffing or the reg moratorium. 
I'd like to give definitive answers but until played by God and everyone we can't. 

[lordmonar]

Please cite your significant harm.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ned]

Please cite the regulations conferring >any< authority to anyone in CAP based on their grade alone.  That is the primary failure
of the grade model in CAP when compared to a "military model".  The second issue is the lack of "up and / or out" which results in
Lt Cols with 50 year badges reporting to 2nd Lts with less then a year.

I guess that is pretty much the point.  99% of what your are calling the "military model" is exactly the same in CAP as it is in the armed forces.  Authority is overwhelmingly based on position rather than grade.  In the Army, just like CAP, commanders hold and exercise disciplinary authority based on their position, not their rank.  Restated, when I was a unit commander, people had to do what I directed because I was in command, not because I was a officer of a particular grade.

A 2LT walking down the street on base has no authority whatsoever to punish some random private that is misbehaving.  Just like CAP, the 2LT has to notify the private's chain of command who are the only persons who can actually discipline the private.

And as we have discussed before, it is not all that unusual in the armed forces to have someone senior in grade assigned to someone junior in rank or grade.  Aircraft commanders are not always the most senior officer in the aircraft.  I was a captain commanding a unit with at least three officers senior to me.

CAP is far more alike than different from the armed forces in the "military model of authority."

Let's be clear - I'm [. . . ]concerned  that a group of well-intentioned members with an agenda that is more about nostalgia
then a workable idea convinced a former national commander to press an idea that wasn't well thought out, and that taken to it's logical conclusion will cause significant harm to an organization already suffering from issues of mission , purpose, and retention.

OK, let's be clear.  So you are far less concerned with what the doctrine actually says than what you are assuming is the (vaguely evil and largely unknown) agenda of the leaders who wrote it?

Seriously?  That will make for a tough debate, all right.

What is written is a plan for some of our members to get promoted and provides for their education / professional development.  Nothing more; nothing less.

I honestly don't know how you can have a rational discussion about the unknown subjective intent of a "former national commander," let alone where the "logical conclusion" of that unknown subjective intent takes us.  Hence my comment about the Black Helicopter stuff.

But I suppose that has never stopped us before on CT. . . .