I find myself needing to demote a cadet and am turning to my colleagues on CAPTalk to verify whether my understanding of the regulations is correct.
After reading CAPR 52-16, I am left with the following impressions:
1) A commander does not need higher approval to demote a cadet.
2) Notification is only sent to the next echelon so they are not taken by surprise if the cadet decides to appeal the demotion.
3) The demotion will not actually be reflected in eServices since NHQ is not notified of it.
4) The only thing that the cadet needs to do to get a stripe back is to demonstrate satisfactory performance for a period of 60 days. This means that they do not have to retake tests, etc.
5) Each stripe lost requires an additional 60 day period of satisfactory performance to be earned back.
Are these impressions correct?
That was my reading of the regs, as well as understanding. I've only ever seen one cadet get demoted...C/MSgt wearing a Mitchell ribbon. Still was allowed to go to an NCSA, and got in trouble there as well...
Off the top of my head, you can only take 2 achievements, or one achievement and one milestone.
I didn't know NHQ wasn't informed nor eServices updated.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 19, 2017, 07:51:49 PM
Off the top of my head, you can only take 2 achievements, or one achievement and one milestone.
The current 52-16 allows for a three step demotion (three achievements or two achievements and a milestone).
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 19, 2017, 07:51:49 PM
I didn't know NHQ wasn't informed nor eServices updated.
I was very surprised by this and want to make sure that I'm not missing some obscure paragraph in another publication that covers this.
Just be sure that you have had documented counseling sessions with the cadet and their parent and given the cadet a path to improve and a date before take a stripe. That should hopefully reduce any parental backlash.
Don't demote them 3 grades today, and 3 again tomorrow. Even though the regulation doesn't prohibit it, Group CCs get all wound up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
On the practical side.
A CAPF 50 should be completed for the cadet.
Spelling out exactly what behavior caused the demotion.
Spelling out exactly what "satisfactory performance over a period of 60 days per achievement or award" means.
A new CAPF 50 should be completed at the end of each 60 day period when the cadet is either promoted or terminated.
Also please note.....That by the regulations (but maybe not common sense) the cadet could be eligible for promotion on the day the rank/achievement/milestone is re-earned.
Key to make this sort of thing work.
a. Involve the parents. Make sure they know why little Johnny is getting his stripes/pips taken away.
b. Be absolutely honest with everyone. Don't just do this as a way to make some problem cadet quit in stead of doing proper termination procedures. Make sure you are set realistic goals. That you keep your end of the bargain if the cadet fulfills them.
c. Understand that there are no provision to change your mind once you start the process. Bust 2d Lt back to SMSgt....and it is 60 day per achievement/milestone. You can't say a month down the road "Well he learned his lesson, lets promote him to Chief now and 2d Lt next month". So...picking the right number of achievements/milestones is important.
d. Make sure you got your ducks in a row. DO THE FRIGGING PAPERWORK! If/when the parents appeal or make an IG complain....make sure you can go to your commander with the facts (as you know them) so that they can make an informed decision.
e. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. Be ready to accept that your decisions may be overturned by higher echelons. Have a plan on how you are going to move on and make sure you don't punish the cadet for the wing commander's soft heart/head.
I've had to do this a couple of times. And these rules made sure that they were more or less successful and with as little butt pain as possible.
Good Luck
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2017, 02:59:59 PM
On the practical side.
A CAPF 50 should be completed for the cadet.
Spelling out exactly what behavior caused the demotion.
Spelling out exactly what "satisfactory performance over a period of 60 days per achievement or award" means.
A new CAPF 50 should be completed at the end of each 60 day period when the cadet is either promoted or terminated.
Also please note.....That by the regulations (but maybe not common sense) the cadet could be eligible for promotion on the day the rank/achievement/milestone is re-earned.
Key to make this sort of thing work.
a. Involve the parents. Make sure they know why little Johnny is getting his stripes/pips taken away.
b. Be absolutely honest with everyone. Don't just do this as a way to make some problem cadet quit in stead of doing proper termination procedures. Make sure you are set realistic goals. That you keep your end of the bargain if the cadet fulfills them.
c. Understand that there are no provision to change your mind once you start the process. Bust 2d Lt back to SMSgt....and it is 60 day per achievement/milestone. You can't say a month down the road "Well he learned his lesson, lets promote him to Chief now and 2d Lt next month". So...picking the right number of achievements/milestones is important.
d. Make sure you got your ducks in a row. DO THE FRIGGING PAPERWORK! If/when the parents appeal or make an IG complain....make sure you can go to your commander with the facts (as you know them) so that they can make an informed decision.
e. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. Be ready to accept that your decisions may be overturned by higher echelons. Have a plan on how you are going to move on and make sure you don't punish the cadet for the wing commander's soft heart/head.
I've had to do this a couple of times. And these rules made sure that they were more or less successful and with as little butt pain as possible.
Good Luck
I would also recommend having a conversation with your Group CC and CPO (if your Group doesn't have a CPO, then Wing DCP) about this before acting on the demotion. These are the people that will be involved in any appeal so it is best to have them on board before going forward.
Demotion is a pretty severe step. Someone above said they saw a cadet demoted for wearing a ribbon they hadn't earned... that seems a little silly to me... more likely to go "hey, take that off" of course if it was a willful violaton after verbal and written warnings. Still seems a little trivial of a thing to me, but don't know the whole story, as usual.
My approach to demotion has always been to treat it as a fork in the road for this cadet's CAP career... it shiuld be accompanied with (another) verbal and written counseling session... if you take one path, the items completed on that path are built to address/correct whatever the deficiency was, restore trust, good graces, and integration back to the unit. ChoosinG the other path leads directly down the hall, around the corner, and out the door (see ya!) Structure it so that only those wo paths are available, and structure it so there can be no waffling and stagnation and endless hem hawing.
I have always found it useful to read in the next higher echelon anytime any adverse action is being taken. Pretty darned unlikely that they will overturn it if they already knew about it and gave it the nod beforehand.
Coudano, he was a Mitchell recipient, demoted to 6 stripes...Not for wearing it. Not sure what for, but he was a general troublemaker. Snuck out of an NCSA, propped up a door, and went into town to get a tattoo...
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on April 20, 2017, 04:00:21 PM
Coudano, he was a Mitchell recipient, demoted to 6 stripes...Not for wearing it. Not sure what for, but he was a general troublemaker. Snuck out of an NCSA, propped up a door, and went into town to get a tattoo...
yeah i see it now, didn't read it right , before.
with that said, a milestone and 2 achievements would only get him down to SMSgt, right?
(depending on how long ago this happened)
Quote from: coudano on April 20, 2017, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on April 20, 2017, 04:00:21 PM
Coudano, he was a Mitchell recipient, demoted to 6 stripes...Not for wearing it. Not sure what for, but he was a general troublemaker. Snuck out of an NCSA, propped up a door, and went into town to get a tattoo...
yeah i see it now, didn't read it right , before.
with that said, a milestone and 2 achievements would only get him down to SMSgt, right?
(depending on how long ago this happened)
Yea, iirc, he said he got smacked -2 and -3, gained 1 back. He was 2b'd after the NCSA.
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on April 19, 2017, 07:44:40 PM
C/MSgt wearing a Mitchell ribbon.
Of all the things someone could try and do that they shouldn't, I'm unable to fathom why they'd pick one which is obviously incorrect to anyone who happens to notice it.
Quote from: raivo on May 04, 2017, 04:40:22 AM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on April 19, 2017, 07:44:40 PM
C/MSgt wearing a Mitchell ribbon.
Of all the things someone could try and do that they shouldn't, I'm unable to fathom why they'd pick one which is obviously incorrect to anyone who happens to notice it.
Again, he didn't get busted down because of it. He was a Mitchell cadet who was busted down TWICE, and was wearing C/MSgt at NCSA.
Sounds correct to me. I would just be careful to not get reported.
I will have to agree with my fellow experienced CP officers. Demoting a cadet is a very serious event. First and foremost it is the welfare and overall development of the cadet.
This is a process. Involvement of the cadet, cadet parents, and keeping higher HQ in the loop is key to success. You MUST utilize the CAPF 50 process and establish a plan of action with specific goals and timelines for behavior modifications. 100% of the time, in my experience, the issue you have is also occurring at home (hence involvement with the cadet's parent in a team approach works very well). The cadet needs to know specifically what is expected, why it's expected, and what are the consequences if behavior is not changed. I follow a progressive discipline process similarly used by public employees because it documents well, encourages improved behavior, and usually keeps commanders happy because in the end you don't demote the cadet, they demote themselves.
Be sure to remove emotion and first ask if you've done everything you could do to help this child...yes they are cadets, but in the end each is a developing child who needs council and mentoring rather than just demotions. Demotions can be effective learning tools, but can also be very harmful if not done properly, devoid of emotion, and in the best interest in helping the cadet not punishing them.
Feel free to pm me for more help/advice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: npfd505 on May 06, 2017, 01:36:56 AM
I will have to agree with my fellow experienced CP officers. Demoting a cadet is a very serious event. First and foremost it is the welfare and overall development of the cadet.
Be sure to remove emotion and first ask if you've done everything you could do to help this child...yes they are cadets, but in the end each is a developing child who needs council and mentoring rather than just demotions. Demotions can be effective learning tools, but can also be very harmful if not done properly, devoid of emotion, and in the best interest in helping the cadet not punishing them.
Feel free to pm me for more help/advice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I completely agree. Personally, I think demotions are the lousiest thing you can do, I think the practice should go away. My experience is they usually have more negative effects than good. What will happen is the cadet will probably regress further. Also IMO, I see it as a form of public punishment, as a cadet once wearing blue shoulder boards and now back to enamel chevrons lets all his peers know he has been punished for something. That cadet may start acting out more.
OP there are other ways to handle these issues. For one talk to the cadet and let him/her know are not performing at the level they are expected. Does that require a demotion? In some cases, that may require simply removal from a position and possibly suspension from activities until they make an improvement. Delay promotions until they are ready to go to the next level. You have to realize perfect improvement will not happen overnight. You need to have some reasonable expectations to filter out standard kid rambunctiousness to actual behavior problems.
Usually kids will act out due to other issues. Sometimes it is an insecurity issue and they do things to be accepted and they will take the negative route sometimes. I have seen it many times as a cadet. There is always the goofball class clown. The goal is to get them to take ownership of the unit and make a clear path for there success. Not all cadets are going act like perfect little angles all of the time. You have to accept that and know how to dial it back. Before taking a negative approach, it might behoove you to investigate further. In some cases it may not involve CAP. It maybe a lash out to some other underlying issue.
Quote from: Starbux on May 10, 2017, 02:13:54 AM
I completely agree. Personally, I think demotions are the lousiest thing you can do, I think the practice should go away. My experience is they usually have more negative effects than good. What will happen is the cadet will probably regress further. Also IMO, I see it as a form of public punishment, as a cadet once wearing blue shoulder boards and now back to enamel chevrons lets all his peers know he has been punished for something. That cadet may start acting out more.
If you are doing things correctly, the demotion is several steps into a progressive series of disciplinary steps that generally starts with verbal corrections followed by verbal counseling and written counseling. Its not a "one and done" kind of thing.
And the intent is that a demotion is a 60, 90 or 120-ish day (corresponding to 1, 2 or 3 grade demotion) "course correction." A three-grade demotion is a big, big deal. There are way, way more steps in the process beforehand, if you're doing it right. Because after demotion, without improvement, comes termination. So you better be prepared for "either improvement or termination" when you demote a cadet, otherwise, you're going to be walking into a swamp with loafers.
Since we keep revisiting this...
I can't imagine an infraction so heinous as deserving a 3-click demotion, or even a demotion down past a Milestone,
where the cadet wouldn't be terminated, and as NIN says, this would be after already employing progressive
discipline before that.
One click gets attention, but dropping a cadet from an Officer to an NCO again, including, presumably the pain of sewing,
etc., seems extreme, and if the cadet is that much of an issue, doubtful he'd be salvageable.
I do not have a vested interest in the situation (or the issue being discussed at hand). I fully concur that though the youngsters we work with are called "cadets", they are still children that are in development. Would like to flip the discussion a bit from "demotion" to "promotion". Why did this cadet get promoted in the first place? Was it because of demonstration of leadership skills, behavior or attitude??? Was it because he simply had all the boxes checked with the time frame for promotion??? Did the Squadron Commander mentor the cadet??? We may do our youngsters a great disservice in promoting them too early in their development personally and/or professionally -- just a thought.
I appreciate all of the advice, but my request was for confirmation that I was reading the regulations right, and that was answered several weeks ago. However...
Some of you are making the mistake of assuming that I have not tried other ways to address the cadet's behavior. I went far, far down the verbal reprimand, written reprimand, talk with parents road, and I have a good understanding of why the cadet has been acting out. None of that made any positive difference in the cadet's behavior, and the cadet finally did something so blatant, public, and extreme that the only appropriate responses were suspension, demotion, or termination.
The suspension has been served and the clock is now ticking for the cadet earn the missing stripe back or be terminated from CAP.
NC Hokie....I am not questioning your intention or action. Based on your postings, it is evident that you are on the right track and doing what is good for the cadet and the program. My posting this morning is just an observation based on experiences over the past 20 years dealing with similar issues where cadets are pushed through the system...which is harmful to them and their peers. In re-reading my remarks, I apology for making the post sound personal. I was attempting to look at a principle....so let me rephrase my observations/questions:
Why do cadets get promoted in the first place? Is it because of demonstration of leadership skills, behavior or attitude??? Is it because they simply have all the boxes checked with the time frame for promotion??? Does the Squadron Commander mentor the cadet??? We may do our youngsters a great disservice in promoting them too early in their development personally and/or professionally -- just a thought.
I know that this process causes a lot of headache and heartburn...especially to those in command who have the vested interest in our cadets. We do want to see them excel and succeed in the program. Again, my apologies in the way I framed my comments and for any additional hurt I may caused you.
I have on occasion used the tool of demotion, although I vastly prefer the tool of promotion, from the operant conditioning toolkit. I also love public praise over private correction - but will use both. Sadly, I've had to terminate several people over the years, as well (both cadet and officer).
Accordingly, never say "never"... I concurred with the recommendation of my unit membership board to impose a three Achievement demotion this past year on one of my cadets (when a Squadron/CC) and the result so far has been very satisfactory. That cadet turned around a very negative trend and is on track to test for Spaatz.
I completely agree with coudanos point: after following a path of progressive discipline, the demotion step is a fork in the road. Beyond the conditions set for regaining their lost grade, lies separation from the program, although that itself could be the ending lesson to help someone change. Hokie, good luck to you and yours.
V/r
Spam
I suppose I may have sounded like I jumped the gun. I guess its prior experience seeing SM's jump the gun as well and sometimes make a mountain out of a mole hill, both as a prior cadet and SM many years ago. In fact I was once on the business end with a few other cadets with some over-zealousness 19 years ago. Some rumor went around saying we did some stuff and what turned out to be a miss understanding evolved into a volcano of SM's not even privy for the thing that occurred calling for us all to be 2B'd or demoted. Eventually the wing commander stepped in and quashed it.
As for promoting too early. That depends. In my past I have seen it go both ways. I have seen cadets who were in their shell come out of it once they were promoted to Sgt (I know old school) and given a leadership position. I have also seen cadets do absolutely nothing wearing silver dots in other squadrons. Those were usually in squadrons where cadets did not really have ownership of the cadet program. As a RAPO I went to a few squadrons where the cadets did not really do anything other than listening to senior members give briefings for an hour and a half. These units the cadet officers were only doing the most basic things like supervising the cadet drill time, not much more.
When I was cadet, we took full ownership of the unit and our program with the SM DCC just being a mentor and obviously the oversight. I noticed that concept seems to have gone away.
Oh well, I don't belong to a cadet or composite squadron anymore. I am in a all SM one. My only interaction with cadets ares simply letting them having the yoke past 1000 feet.
Quote from: Starbux on May 11, 2017, 12:09:32 AM
When I was cadet, we took full ownership of the unit and our program with the SM DCC just being a mentor and obviously the oversight. I noticed that concept seems to have gone away.
I don't think this has gone away but it depends a lot on the squadron. Our cadets do take ownership of the squadron meetings, but the extra activities are a problem. We have only one active cadet officer and she is a C/2Lt. I hope in a year or two the number of cadet officers will have grown and that we will have more cadets in the 17-20 age range.
Quote from: Starbux on May 11, 2017, 12:09:32 AM
When I was cadet, we took full ownership of the unit and our program with the SM DCC just being a mentor and obviously the oversight. I noticed that concept seems to have gone away.
Few squadrons these days have the cadets capable of doing this in either number or ability. The ones that do are lucky anomalies.
For starters, there's just "less" everything - Units, seniors, cadets, resources, activities, and independence. Most squadrons and activities
are too far from a cadet's home for them to participate without a chauffeur, which means participation becomes a negotiation
with the parents' lives, which are equally or more complicated then ever before.
It is a different world, the expectations administratively are higher (though should be easier with all the online), and most
cadets have a far higher level of expectation and activities at their schools and extracurricular then BITD.
Every 7th grade basketball coach thinks he's running the Lakers, and the school plays act like they are Broadway.
The idea of "cadet run", while god on paper, din't really exist in a lot of CAP, certainly not in any areas I've been privy to,
and in some cases, those that were, generated stories, complaints, and x-cadets.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2017, 07:03:27 PM
Quote from: Starbux on May 11, 2017, 12:09:32 AM
When I was cadet, we took full ownership of the unit and our program with the SM DCC just being a mentor and obviously the oversight. I noticed that concept seems to have gone away.
Few squadrons these days have the cadets capable of doing this in either number or ability. The ones that do are lucky anomalies.
For starters, there's just "less" everything - Units, seniors, cadets, resources, activities, and independence. Most squadrons and activities
are too far from a cadet's home for them to participate without a chauffeur, which means participation becomes a negotiation
with the parents' lives, which are equally or more complicated then ever before.
It is a different world, the expectations administratively are higher (though should be easier with all the online), and most
cadets have a far higher level of expectation and activities at their schools and extracurricular then BITD.
Every 7th grade basketball coach thinks he's running the Lakers, and the school plays act like they are Broadway.
The idea of "cadet run", while god on paper, din't really exist in a lot of CAP, certainly not in any areas I've been privy to,
and in some cases, those that were, generated stories, complaints, and x-cadets.
I completely agree here.
And to add to it, I think many cadets, and former cadets who became seniors, don't understand the complexity of the Cadet Program and what it really takes to run a quality cadet unit (no, I'm not speaking about the award criteria). "Cadets running everything" excludes a lot of the coordinating functions that really goes into the strategic needs of the program---scheduling interfaces, reviews/feedback/counseling, the individual training needs, not to mention the wide world of individual issues that cadets bring with them from their home life (and they do bring those to the meeting). Let's not forget the logical demands of the program either.
I'm not saying cadets can't contribute to all of the above, and even "take ownership," but, as someone who is 100% on the idea that we coddle kids too much and give them way to many excuses and outs, I find that most adults can't even balance these areas, myself included at times.
We use terms like "oversee the program," but we really need to take that for what it is---managing the entire thing from "behind the scenes" and coaching cadets in a way that makes them feel like they're "running everything" when we know they really aren't; they may be running a tiny portion of it, but they aren't "running everything" by a long shot.
I strongly want to mention that we really need to recognize that nobody is "running everything" from any post. Their responsibilities and accountability may shift depending on duty position and command role, but no single person "runs things." It takes cohesion and coordination---unity of command and espirit de corps.
Take all that at face value, but that's exactly what I want to consider when I look at a single cadet and try to assess if they "get it," and if I did what I could to get them to understand what I'm getting at; and if not, I need to start assessing if they're really demonstrating that they even want to make it work. If they aren't meeting the above, and aren't willing to run their assigned function with the intent on maintaining that cohesion, then maybe that's when the demotion does come into play.
I will say, I know of two cadets who were actually demoted at one point or another (one of them twice). I have never seen them rise back up to where they should be, or put forth the effort to show they really were affected by that demotion. I think when we hit a point where a cadet demotion is warranted, you really need to look at if this person is really in the game or not. Can you convince yourself that demoting this person will give them the butt kick they need to get with the program, or is this just a tool to make them want to leave at this point because you feel you can't do anything else with them?
Personally, I won't demote a C/2d Lt who isn't showing me officer-level performance so long as they have the will do get there. I may reassign their role, and I'll see where they can fit, but effort on their part begets effort on my part. If it comes with some extreme attitude and disrespect, and some coup effort within the cadet corps, I'll slap the demotion right there on the table as a firm reminder that I'm not bluffing on making a point about discipline and courtesy in our traditions. It's not negotiable. I haven't crossed the line to demote anyone yet, and it's not like I haven't had that conversation with my fellow cadre, but you need to do something at some point to fire a firm shot across the bow without being afraid to strike the hull if it comes to it.
Those are all valid points. I suppose the world has changed quite a bit since I was a cadet. Some the things mentioned like strategic planning and setting up the optimal program, I suppose is a philosophical mindset. In my mind, and I am not sure if the HQ sees it this way, is that the cadet program should be close to what is modeled in AFROTC at the university level. In some ways I think at one time that was the intent for a unit. My old one worked that way to some extent. I can say the skills myself and other cadets got from running the cadet side of the house in CAP did a decent job preparing us for organizational leadership structures. In fact in some respects I found AFROTC to be much easier in that realm I served as the the cadet wing commander in my last participatory semester in AFROTC.
As CAP cadet commander many years ago, I had a balancing act of getting people to do their assigned roles while realizing other life priorities were there. Kids back then also had band, football, track and every other thing involved with high school life including part time jobs. In fact I has one back then. We had a policy where if your grades were bad, we restricted cadets from promoting and achievements. School was emphasized to be the most important thing you should be doing. You can get the Spaatz, every award under the sun, and that ment nothing if you could not graduate high school with good grades.
In AFROTC the role as a leader was much easier. Your staff had no choice but to figure out how to balance life. If they couldn't, the risk was losing your POCI or scholarship and being sent to Lackland to pay off your contract in the E ranks.
In some respect those are the best skills to learn. Even after college it doesn't get easier as everyone can attest. It stays the same or gets harder. As a reservist, I balance a job, reserve duty and CAP all while having to finish a masters and finish ACSC on time, which I am on attempt number 2 due to life as I decided to go back to flying for a living from a boring cubicle job as government contractor and yeah that got me task saturated. I think if the cadet program doesn't at least attempt this, I feel it is really doing what seemed like it was intended. If its an age issue I get it. You are not going have a bunch of 12 and 13 year olds running an organization very well. But at some point they should be starting to be groomed to do those things. If parents don't see the value in their kids getting those life skills, then that's a shame. These things are not unique to the military.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2017, 07:03:27 PM
The idea of "cadet run", while god on paper, din't really exist in a lot of CAP, certainly not in any areas I've been privy to,
and in some cases, those that were, generated stories, complaints, and x-cadets.
Well, which was it? "...a lot of CAP...?," or "...in any areas I've been privy to...?" You do. know there are 51 Wings besides yours, right? Not only does the concept exist on paper, but it exists in "...a lot of CAP...," likely in most of it. And many of us, across a wide spectrum of locations and eras, are products of it.
I think you and I are on the same page. This is an age old attitude that I have seen and I am sure you as well. "Cadets need constant guidance from the all mighty SM staff." When that should not be the case. That might be true for the young kids. But if the program is done right, cadets getting near high school graduation and college entry, should be very close. Will they be perfect? No, but I can say as a former CAP-USAF neither are our fellow SM's. If that were true then every wing would be getting high excellents and outstandings on their op evals. I can say that hardly the case with a few wings I evaluated out of five. One wing we had to be very creative just to give them a successful once. In some cases we had cadets that had more SA on what was going on versus their SM counterparts, so yeah.
I think that the older cadets should be working towards this mindset of taking charge of various aspects of the squadron. In some cases they should have that chance to even take on SM roles, as some squadron's are very thin on SM membership where there is enough jobs to go around. Its a leadership lab for a reason. If they make mistakes and have occasional missteps that's a good thing. This is where you want them to make those errors. At least in CAP the consequences short of a blatant violation are small. Whereas in real life you don't too many chances to make errors. I know as cadet in my past, some SM's in the wing took a huge offence when they saw over proactive cadets. Some of them made their mission to tear down those cadets. We used to have a running joke. You did not truly earn your Eaker or Spaatz unless you had been threatened a 2B or demotion at least once in your cadet career. That meant you were not trying hard enough :) Of course his was not for a serious violation that was cut and dry. This usually resulted in someone using the regs as a weapon and tried to find some hidden nebulous thing you might have broke and tried to make a major scandal out of it.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 13, 2017, 10:36:09 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2017, 07:03:27 PM
The idea of "cadet run", while god on paper, din't really exist in a lot of CAP, certainly not in any areas I've been privy to,
and in some cases, those that were, generated stories, complaints, and x-cadets.
Well, which was it? "...a lot of CAP...?," or "...in any areas I've been privy to...?" You do. know there are 51 Wings besides yours, right? Not only does the concept exist on paper, but it exists in "...a lot of CAP...," likely in most of it. And many of us, across a wide spectrum of locations and eras, are products of it.
"Being a product of it", from nearly 40 years ago, as your handle implies, doesn't make it relevent
today.
The world of 1969 was a very different place, as was CAP. Very different, for not the only reason, but certainly
an important one of significantly less draws on adolescent times and attention.
Parsing out NHQ, 999s, and 000s, there are less then 1200 charters that have cadets. Of those, give each wing the
benefit of the doubt of 5 units per wing that are "cadet run" in the way being discussed, that's about 20%,
and I would say that's benevolent on the high side. There are certainly wings that have much less then that, if any at all.
20% isn't enough to be influential on the whole, it's an anomaly.
My message acknowledges there are likely some who run squadrons that way, it also says those are "few".
Which they are.
Cadet membership and staffing is a dynamic function. The number of "cadet-run" units should constantly be in flux, I believe, as cadet age cohorts graduate and depart the pattern, leaving the potential for maturity and experience gaps. Adult officers should (if they're following the program) monitor for this and be available to step in to provide more, or less, of both indirect and direct leadership to keep the unit on track.
For example, if a units cadet complement consists mainly of junior high cadets of lower grades (Cadets Basic up through C/TSGT, say) it would be inappropriate for the unit/CC to appoint one of them (however capable) as a Cadet Commander, or even a Flight Commander, or even to appoint one to the Wing Cadet Advisory Council, as all three of those roles are (by the approved program - not my opinion) designed for and aimed at development of indirect (cadet officer) leadership. In that case, the adult leadership should step in and provide program goal setting (leadership), planning, scheduling, and a degree of execution (management). They should be encouraging and developing the Cadet NCOs to perform and master direct troop leadership tasks and prepare themselves to transition to be cadet officers, and gradually assume those indirect leader roles (as Flight Commanders, as CAC reps, and as Cadet Commanders respectively as they gain grade, per the Cadet Staff Handbook).
See:
https://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?cadet_staff_handbook__2016&show=entry&blogID=1802 (https://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?cadet_staff_handbook__2016&show=entry&blogID=1802)
https://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Staff_Handbook__Nov_16_802A2D2F952CC.pdf (https://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Staff_Handbook__Nov_16_802A2D2F952CC.pdf)
Ref: p. 3, 1.4 THE CHANGING ROLE OF SENIOR MEMBERS.
Many of us have had experiences from "cadet-run" programs (to various degrees) and equally as many have probably had or have seen the other side of the coin. Both are, I would submit, NORMATIVE to the cadet program in its various phases. So, lets step back, take a reflective look at our respective local situations in the context offered by the national program of record, and keep an open mind to readjust when necessary.
R/S, Respectfully Submitted,
Spam
I prefer the term "facilitate" for myself as a CP officer, of a mature and well-functioning cadet unit. I enable and encourage the program to happen, shape processes, and restrict the program from crossing boundaries and help cadets in the learning process of maintaining standards themselves and let the clock run (it will). However I am not the driving force, nor the "show central" if i'm doing it right. That's backed up by the fact that when I (as an individual) go away and don't participate anymore, the machine continues running, and producing outstanding outputs. If losing me as CPO all by itself crashes the program, then i'm doing it wrong.
I would use great care in how much you involve your phase 2 and 3 cadets in squadron commander level disciplinary action (retention of grade, suspension, demotion, termination) but they should definitely be involved in the background stuff that goes on around and leading up to those things, when they do happen (and it really should be rare). (we used a performance feedback worksheet for every in-phase advancement or every 6 months, whichever happens more often-- and a promotion review board for phase changes //all conducted by cadets). Knowing where and how to draw that line is an unfortunately under-emphasized but key component of being a CPO... How much do you let your cadets exercise, and where do you "control" them for their own protection and the protection of the program? That's a raw per-situation judgment call that you just have to use good sense and experience to make. Personally I err on the side of [strike]letting[/strike] (eh, demanding) the cadets do it unless I can anticipate some sort of perceivable /damage/ to the cadet, or the program, but i'm a little more comfortable running that 'loose' than perhaps most CPO's.
Sure a dead, or nearly-dead unit will require some extra hands-on, at first. But as the unit gains capability and maturity, the CPO direct manipulation of the program should back off accordingly. There is, at this point, a verifiable, repeatable formula that has produced results in units across the country. It's really not some sort of mystical "unknown" anymore. This particular code has pretty well been cracked. IMnsHO, a squadron level CPO should be spending pretty much the entirety of their time teaching and mentoring their top tier cadets who will then take care of turning the cogs of the rest of the program. If that's not what you are doing, you are working way too hard (burning yourself out...) And you are wasting A LOT of potential.
The challenge of consistent high performance in the CP, in my opinion, is expressing the program that i've described, in a way that is accessible to more CPO's, and training them better to focus on achieving the above outcomes. Good work is being done every day in that direction, but we certainly have a ways to go. As it is, we get success in pockets. We get what LOOKS LIKE success (but kind of misses the mark) in pockets. We get kind of crappy returns elsewhere. It's not the program that doesn't work... It's implementation (which boils down to definition and training).
dangit
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2017, 06:43:41 PM
20% isn't enough to be influential on the whole, it's an anomaly.
My message acknowledges there are likely some who run squadrons that way, it also says those are "few".
Which they are.
That begs the question than, are the units who run this way, really running a cadet program? Or are they simply running an after school activity where the kids where uniforms and look the part? If so then CAP needs to take a step back and recage the ADI. This can't be good in the long run. I can see this leading down the path to failure. What will make kids want to be in if all they do is show up every week do 30 minutes of drill and listen to SM's drone about different subjects. Also how do these units measure performance in leadership? Marching a couple flights around the parking lot is certainly not the sole metric in demonstrating leadership. Okay so your kids can wear a uniform and do some drill. So what? What is that preparing them for. Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source. Kids of the street learn that within a few days at basic so that's not really a huge thing. You are not going to learn leadership by simply reading it from a book. You need the chance to practice it and make errors and learn from them.
If you are right and this is the path that the program is headed. I predict it will be gone in the next two decades or radically shift its emphasis and become just another version of the Scouts and that will be too bad.
Quote from: coudano on May 14, 2017, 09:51:44 PM
I prefer the term "facilitate" for myself as a CP officer, of a mature and well-functioning cadet unit. I enable and encourage the program to happen, shape processes, and restrict the program from crossing boundaries and help cadets in the learning process of maintaining standards themselves and let the clock run (it will). However I am not the driving force, nor the "show central" if i'm doing it right. That's backed up by the fact that when I (as an individual) go away and don't participate anymore, the machine continues running, and producing outstanding outputs. If losing me as CPO all by itself crashes the program, then i'm doing it wrong.
You hit the nail on the head!
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
That begs the question than, are the units who run this way, really running a cadet program? Or are they simply running an after school activity where the kids where uniforms and look the part?
More then a few are running rec centers, far too many are near the latter category, but the majority are somewhere in between.
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
If so then CAP needs to take a step back and recage the ADI. This can't be good in the long run. I can see this leading down the path to failure. What will make kids want to be in if all they do is show up every week do 30 minutes of drill and listen to SM's drone about different subjects. Also how do these units measure performance in leadership? Marching a couple flights around the parking lot is certainly not the sole metric in demonstrating leadership. Okay so your kids can wear a uniform and do some drill. So what? What is that preparing them for.
Life as good citizens, possibly / hopefully with careers in tech or aerospace. CAP isn't, and never has been, a recruiting arm of the military, even if it looks like one on paper, and a >lot< of
kids use CAP to find out the military
isn't for them, as much as it is, which is fine, too.
When cadets are progressing and engaged in meaningful / interesting activities, then the "who is at the front of the room" is less important.
You want to allow cadets to try and sometimes fail in a benevolent environment, but in a lot of cases, there is simply no real opportunity for this
beyond larger activities like NCSA and encampments, and even a lot of those are just scripted reality television.
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source. Kids of the street learn that within a few days at basic so that's not really a huge thing. You are not going to learn leadership by simply reading it from a book. You need the chance to practice it and make errors and learn from them.
If you are right and this is the path that the program is headed. I predict it will be gone in the next two decades or radically shift its emphasis and become just another version of the Scouts and that will be too bad.
I don't think it's going to take two decades, and there are a lot more forces at work in CAP's demise beyond whether the CP is, or isn't, "cadet run".
I think on the mean the CP is about the same as it ever was from an execution standpoint, but the bubble is shrinking every year,
which means "less", adults, fully trained members, members with relevent experience, and opportunities and activities that attract
members in the first place. There's a tipping point a lot of us can already see over the hill, the when is just a calendar exercise.
I want to be wrong on this, but the fix is going to take years, and no one has even started the discussion, let alone the work.
As mentioned, and related, the "Great Fallacy" is that NHQ can compel anyone to do anything, or that the programs,
no matter how tightly they are written, are actually executed as designed.
The military, and most private businesses, can compel action, move people to the organization's advantage despite the
protests of the individual, "grow" new people, and generally force the silly putty into whatever shape the model calls for.
In CAP, there's never enough clay, it's usually the wrong type, most of it is already hardened, or was left in the sun too long
and can't be changed, only used as-is, and far too much of it is only 1/2-listening to start with.
A unit of Phase I & II cadets isn't likely to be able to "run" anything without significant adult guidance, and in Phase III & IV, I
think I've known maybe 5-6 cadets who legitimately were capable of "running" a CP. The others, and that includes the esteemed
Spaatzen, were not. Many because of lack of ability, but more because of lack of time or interest.
Just stand up and look around at the units you personally know about - think about how many fully-capable pips and diamonds
you are aware of, and how many units are running with "hoping to get a cadet officer soon", and that will give you the
state of the program in that regard.
That doesn't negate the efforts, but it frames the discussion in reality.
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source.
No.
That is *not* the desired outcome that we should be shooting for when we choose to spend our precious few contact hours on drill and ceremonies.
And that is something that needs broaching in the CP community.
Ask your closest 10 fellow CP officers and all of your cadet leaders what the purpose of spending time on drill and ceremonies is (what is the ultimate big picture desired learning objective).
Probably the most common answer besides scratched heads will be the one from the leadership test "uh, teamwork (i guess), because it's answer C, and that's the right answer???" What does that actually mean? Is it the only desired outcome? This is the kind of 'strategic' or systematic thinking that is appropriate for a CPO to do, as they facilitate the program. Not just for drill but for everything that we take the time to spend time doing. Bring it up at your next TLC!
anyway, as you said...
QuoteKids of the street learn that within a few days at basic so that's not really a huge thing.
(and they will probably learn it the "right" way, in the context for their basic training, as opposed to the nonsense CAP usually teaches them)
Just my .002 - I am not fond of the term "cadet run". The term "cadet driven" sounds more like what we should be trying achieve. Kinda like the old days when many of us had driver's training in high school. The student was behind the wheel -- yet the driving instructor had a steering-wheel and a pedals to operate in case of emergency. The ultimate goal is to assist the cadets become leaders --- and that is done by providing instruction, mentoring and opportunities to succeed (and even fail) within the environment of supportive senior members.
^ I Like this "Cadet run", in some cases, is code for the adults abdicating their responsibility.
The senior are the constant thread that keeps the lights on, the cadets are the transient product,
the more they can do, the better for all involved, but ultimate the seniors will be there when the
cadets age out, move on, or dark side and become one with the force.
Again, if you 've got a diamond factory, cadet run or otherwise, it's hard to take issue with the execution,
but I've seen, and heard about, far too many units "cadet run" running on fumes, which means
"two adults to meet the spec, and the cadets over on the other side of the room doing their stuff, whatever that means..."
No progression, no retention, and "no one can figure out what the problem is..."
Quote from: Eclipse on May 15, 2017, 12:29:27 AM
^ I Like this "Cadet run", in some cases, is code for the adults abdicating their responsibility.
The senior are the constant thread that keeps the lights on, the cadets are the transient product,
the more they can do, the better for all involved, but ultimate the seniors will be there when the
cadets age out, move on, or dark side and become one with the force.
Agree, and also agree with Chappie. I have witnessed the effect of abdication and it's frightening. I have also witnessed and experienced the progress made when you "facilitate", "guide", "allow soft failures"..etc
We've grown some good cadet NCOs recently and I was a little startled at their proactive approach...then realized this is what I'd been driving towards for months... ::) (couldn't find a face palm emoticon). Now the challenge is to guide that enthusiasm.
Quote from: coudano on May 15, 2017, 12:15:26 AM
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source.
No.
That is *not* the desired outcome that we should be shooting for when we choose to spend our precious few contact hours on drill and ceremonies.
And that is something that needs broaching in the CP community.
Ask your closest 10 fellow CP officers and all of your cadet leaders what the purpose of spending time on drill and ceremonies is (what is the ultimate big picture desired learning objective).
My point was not to get in the discussion of the purpose of DNC is. Mainly to point out that in some squadrons that's the only function of the cadet leadership.
I went to one squadron as a RAPO where it was done flawlessly. Cadets in staff positions would shadow their SM counterparts. The cadet command staff would be in a planning session with the DCC and would be planning and hashing out future activities. The cadets were engaged in the program with a reasonable oversight from the senior members. Essentially describing what your unit does.
Quote from: Starbux on May 15, 2017, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: coudano on May 15, 2017, 12:15:26 AM
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source.
No.
That is *not* the desired outcome that we should be shooting for when we choose to spend our precious few contact hours on drill and ceremonies.
And that is something that needs broaching in the CP community.
Ask your closest 10 fellow CP officers and all of your cadet leaders what the purpose of spending time on drill and ceremonies is (what is the ultimate big picture desired learning objective).
My point was not to get in the discussion of the purpose of DNC is. Mainly to point out that in some squadrons that's the only function of the cadet leadership.
I went to one squadron as a RAPO where it was done flawlessly. Cadets in staff positions would shadow their SM counterparts. The cadet command staff would be in a planning session with the DCC and would be planning and hashing out future activities. The cadets were engaged in the program with a reasonable oversight from the senior members. Essentially describing what your unit does.
The purpose of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is not to prepare cadets at any level, regardless of whether or not they intend to go into the United States Armed Forces, to enlist or commission. Cadets don't learn drill to prepare for these things; they learn it as part of a self-discipline, incorporating Air Force tradition, and to provide an opportunity for cadets to teach/lead other cadets in skill development.
When we talk about a "strategic plan" for a cadet unit, we need to constantly be focusing on what our expectations are of cadets, what they want to get from the program, and, most of all, the National Commander's intention for the program. We should be meeting our objectives for well-rounded youth leaders in the community that can transition to adulthood with a certain level of self-reliance and team orientation. We do not train military wannabes in CAP; this is not our goal. If a cadet wants to go into the military, fantastic; good for him/her. I'll do whatever I can to help. But at the end of the day, that's not what we do. We use a military backdrop to implement a leadership training program.
If you are spending half of your meeting time each month doing drill, you're going way overboard; take a look at your strategic plan and see if you're meeting your vision. That is not what this program is about---being masters at drill and ceremony. Some do better than others, but the cadets need to dictate if they really want to excel at Color Guard and/or rifle drill. It's not the basis for the training program, though.
A unit that excels in drill and can't actually run a leadership program is failing its mission, because you have developed expert instructors in drill but have diminished their ability to problem solve and think both individually and collectively to serve the unit and the community. I absolutely believe that letting cadets "run the unit" and having them teach mostly drill is taking them away of what they can be focusing on, and I really see it as laziness on the part of adult leaders.
One thing to point out, especially with those who "run" cadet programs and/or work closely with cadets....okay, anyone really:
Please stop "inventing" new acronyms/initialisms and jargon. I see this a lot in CAP, and it makes for a very non-standardized interface with other units who start to have no clue what you're saying.
It's "CDC," not "DCC."
CD = Deputy Commander (or Commander's Deputy)
CAP actually has manuals on its offices; cadets and seniors should all be taught to reference correct information and use it appropriately.
Excuse the rant here, and I don't mean to come off abrasive, but this really peeves me.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on May 16, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: Starbux on May 15, 2017, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: coudano on May 15, 2017, 12:15:26 AM
Quote from: Starbux on May 14, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
Yeah they need to learn drill for BMT or some commissioning source.
No.
That is *not* the desired outcome that we should be shooting for when we choose to spend our precious few contact hours on drill and ceremonies.
And that is something that needs broaching in the CP community.
Ask your closest 10 fellow CP officers and all of your cadet leaders what the purpose of spending time on drill and ceremonies is (what is the ultimate big picture desired learning objective).
My point was not to get in the discussion of the purpose of DNC is. Mainly to point out that in some squadrons that's the only function of the cadet leadership.
I went to one squadron as a RAPO where it was done flawlessly. Cadets in staff positions would shadow their SM counterparts. The cadet command staff would be in a planning session with the DCC and would be planning and hashing out future activities. The cadets were engaged in the program with a reasonable oversight from the senior members. Essentially describing what your unit does.
The purpose of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is not to prepare cadets at any level, regardless of whether or not they intend to go into the United States Armed Forces, to enlist or commission. Cadets don't learn drill to prepare for these things; they learn it as part of a self-discipline, incorporating Air Force tradition, and to provide an opportunity for cadets to teach/lead other cadets in skill development.
When we talk about a "strategic plan" for a cadet unit, we need to constantly be focusing on what our expectations are of cadets, what they want to get from the program, and, most of all, the National Commander's intention for the program. We should be meeting our objectives for well-rounded youth leaders in the community that can transition to adulthood with a certain level of self-reliance and team orientation. We do not train military wannabes in CAP; this is not our goal. If a cadet wants to go into the military, fantastic; good for him/her. I'll do whatever I can to help. But at the end of the day, that's not what we do. We use a military backdrop to implement a leadership training program.
If you are spending half of your meeting time each month doing drill, you're going way overboard; take a look at your strategic plan and see if you're meeting your vision. That is not what this program is about---being masters at drill and ceremony. Some do better than others, but the cadets need to dictate if they really want to excel at Color Guard and/or rifle drill. It's not the basis for the training program, though.
A unit that excels in drill and can't actually run a leadership program is failing its mission, because you have developed expert instructors in drill but have diminished their ability to problem solve and think both individually and collectively to serve the unit and the community. I absolutely believe that letting cadets "run the unit" and having them teach mostly drill is taking them away of what they can be focusing on, and I really see it as laziness on the part of adult leaders.
One thing to point out, especially with those who "run" cadet programs and/or work closely with cadets....okay, anyone really:
Please stop "inventing" new acronyms/initialisms and jargon. I see this a lot in CAP, and it makes for a very non-standardized interface with other units who start to have no clue what you're saying.
It's "CDC," not "DCC."
CD = Deputy Commander (or Commander's Deputy)
CAP actually has manuals on its offices; cadets and seniors should all be taught to reference correct information and use it appropriately.
Excuse the rant here, and I don't mean to come off abrasive, but this really peeves me.
We're going off on a tangent here from OP but I'd lke to counter that by saying this is an informal board. If this was formal communication I'd be totally in agreement. While I do follow regulations and manuals and the like, office symbols actually peeve me. Spell it out for what it is. DCC = Deputy Commander for Cadets. Simple. Why we have to abide by "office symbols" that only make things more muddled in my mind is beyond me. Again, I comply in formal settings with regs (such as office symbols) but with a grumble.
Oh and this is a 20 year old Flight Officer talking so maybe this is an age thing as well (me not really giving a rats), but again, this is informal.
Informal in my mind should mean you should have the choice to do the "formal thing" or not. As long as we get what one another is saying, the point gets across right?
In all forms of communication there is always a choice, the right way and the wrong way.
It's one thing when you don't know the proper terms, but once you do, using anything else is
just saying "you can't make me".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2017, 10:55:48 PM
In all forms of communication there is always a choice, the right way and the wrong way.
It's one thing when you don't know the proper terms, but once you do, using anything else is
just saying "you can't make me".
I'll concede on that note my good sir, you got me there. I got nothing on that. I know cadet abbreviations I don't know senior stuff yet, haven't gotten that far down the list of "Things to learn" quite yet. They've been keeping me away from the cadets anyways. Call it a "senior indoctrination" they want me to know my role first as a senior and learn my job then we'll talk about cadets.
I don't think you are, but just in case, don't take that personally, most seniors with CP experience consider that a best practice to
let the "dark forces" take hold before being unleashed back at the Jedi Academy.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2017, 11:00:53 PM
I don't think you are, but just in case, don't take that personally, most seniors with CP experience consider that a best practice to
let the "dark forces" take hold before being unleashed back at the Jedi Academy.
Apologies sir but I'm not quite following the first part of the comment. Don't think I'm what exactly?...
Oh yeah the "indoctrination" is common practice in NVWG, at least....they try to make it common heh. Too many Cadet->Seniors have stuck in the same squadron, have been immediately thrown into a position and since they weren't...."seniorized" yet they had troubles and burnt out. On Nellis was a perfect example. You had a cadet who turned senior who then was immediately put as CDC (ah see what I did? hah only poking fun since we were JUST talking about it) he of course had troubles and left since he wasn't "seniorized" while trying to learn the HUGE role.
Quote from: Shieldel on May 16, 2017, 11:05:46 PM
Apologies sir but I'm not quite following the first part of the comment. Don't think I'm what exactly?...
Taking it personally.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on May 16, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
The purpose of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is not to prepare cadets at any level, regardless of whether or not they intend to go into the United States Armed Forces, to enlist or commission. Cadets don't learn drill to prepare for these things; they learn it as part of a self-discipline, incorporating Air Force tradition, and to provide an opportunity for cadets to teach/lead other cadets in skill development.
I never said it was the sole purpose. I did say, if done correctly it can provide useful skills to build on if someone does pursue a military career. I also said it provided skills valuable to civilian corporate structures as well. I know full well to all who are reading this, that not every cadet goes further to pursue a military career. In my time I would say only 25% of us in my group went on to pursue the military afterwords in one form or another. I already had the ambition to be an military pilot before CAP. I saw CAP as an opportunity to help further those goals. I would say things I learned through the years probably helped. Drill was not one of them. Running a cadet wing in senior ROTC was less challenging than running a cadet squadron in CAP, for the various reasons and challenges as previously expressed by everyone. Also having my private pilot licence helped boost my score on the rated officer selection for pilot, and the access to planes and instructors helped.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on May 16, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
When we talk about a "strategic plan" for a cadet unit, we need to constantly be focusing on what our expectations are of cadets, what they want to get from the program, and, most of all, the National Commander's intention for the program. We should be meeting our objectives for well-rounded youth leaders in the community that can transition to adulthood with a certain level of self-reliance and team orientation. We do not train military wannabes in CAP; this is not our goal. If a cadet wants to go into the military, fantastic; good for him/her. I'll do whatever I can to help. But at the end of the day, that's not what we do. We use a military backdrop to implement a leadership training program.
If you are spending half of your meeting time each month doing drill, you're going way overboard; take a look at your strategic plan and see if you're meeting your vision. That is not what this program is about---being masters at drill and ceremony. Some do better than others, but the cadets need to dictate if they really want to excel at Color Guard and/or rifle drill. It's not the basis for the training program, though.
A unit that excels in drill and can't actually run a leadership program is failing its mission, because you have developed expert instructors in drill but have diminished their ability to problem solve and think both individually and collectively to serve the unit and the community. I absolutely believe that letting cadets "run the unit" and having them teach mostly drill is taking them away of what they can be focusing on, and I really see it as laziness on the part of adult leaders.
I do agree with that.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on May 16, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
One thing to point out, especially with those who "run" cadet programs and/or work closely with cadets....okay, anyone really:
Please stop "inventing" new acronyms/initialisms and jargon. I see this a lot in CAP, and it makes for a very non-standardized interface with other units who start to have no clue what you're saying.
It's "CDC," not "DCC."
CD = Deputy Commander (or Commander's Deputy)
CAP actually has manuals on its offices; cadets and seniors should all be taught to reference correct information and use it appropriately.
Excuse the rant here, and I don't mean to come off abrasive, but this really peeves me.
There are worse things to get spun up over. That's just me.
In my experience, a Wing Commander (coordinated via Wing IG to ensure legalities) can authorize additional requirements (based on the demotable offense) during a demotion period for Cadets to accomplish prior to resuming their previous rank. It must be communicated through the chain of the command to the Cadet's respective Unit Commander, and repeal process must be explained. Although this incident occurred at a Wing Event and demotion is under authority of the Wing King, he/she delegated the task of advising the repeal process to the Unit Commander.
Cadet's can still wear achievement/milestone ribbons they earned, but the demotion only affects rank. A cadet can only be demoted no more than 3 achievements, or 2 Achievements and a Milestone Award (180 Days). Also, as an example a Cadet demoted 2-3 achievements does not promote to the next rank after 60 days of honorable service, they must wear the rank demoted to until the Unit Commander/Demotion Authority determines the cadet has satisfactorily met requirements. For Example:
A C/MSgt demoted to C/SSgt can not pin on C/TSgt after 60 Days. After 120 Days the Cadet is promoted to C/MSgt from C/SSgt.
This was interpretation as a promotion to the next rank during a demotion conflicts with "No progression during the promotion period" .
Some Cadets can be sent straight to 2B....sometimes cadets over the age 18 can be "encouraged" to become senior members or depending on "special circumstances", can be encouraged to leave the Cadet Program.
If it's really that bad, I favor the 2B.
True, but based on differing circumstances this is why we have the options to demote or 2b, or if a large number of cadet offenders: Both. In the case I am referring many of the disciplined cadets accepted the demotion and were reinstated to their official ranks 6 months later, a handful immediately dropped out of the cadet program. One even earned the Spaatz Award eventually. Most of the cadets went on to have successful military careers, both enlisted and commissioned. Let's just say the Wing King at the time had exceptional counsel who, determining cadets had make a mistake, still saw value and worth to learn a life lesson and continue service in CAP.