Why aren't Region commanders Brigadiers?

[spacecommand]

Maj General Harwell was the reason we ended up with Maroon epaulets.  His "promotion" was not sanctified by the Air Force and, was never recognized as such.  You see, Robert, the Air Force has total control of our grades.

Might be an old debate but...

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7453.0

[FW]

^ I must disagree with my distinguished friend, BG Anderson.  The reason the Air Force wanted us to be more "distinctive" in our appearance was directly caused by the Harwell "promotion".
NOTE: the promotion was "official" because it had the blessing of the SECAF-MIR however, the CSAF was not consulted in this and refused to recognize it. Hence, the Air Force insistence we become "more distinctive" in our appearance.  The change to gray epaulets was made only after BG Barry agreed not to wear the Maj Gen stars. 

Now back to our previous topic...

[SarDragon]

Of course, there's another question. Do we really need Regions? What purpose do they serve today?

Span of control.

[jimmydeanno]

What purpose do they serve today?

an increase in membership dues...

[flyboy53]

O.K., so in another string, there's a proposal to tighten up promotion requirements and make achievement of the Wilson Award as part of the criteria for lieutenant colonel; which really isn't all that bad of an idea. It would give a whole new meaning to that achievement and probably calm all those "too many chiefs" complainers.

Making region commanders brigadier generals isn't a bad idea either, given their span of control. Why doesn't someone float this proposal to the National CC and take it to the CASAF? Would these ranks be temporary until completion of the tour of duty just like wing commanders and national commanders?

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

[RVT]

O.K., so in another string, there's a proposal to tighten up promotion requirements and make achievement of the Wilson Award as part of the criteria for lieutenant colonel; which really isn't all that bad of an idea. It would give a whole new meaning to that achievement and probably calm all those "too many chiefs" complainers.

Making region commanders brigadier generals isn't a bad idea either, given their span of control. Why doesn't someone float this proposal to the National CC and take it to the CASAF? Would these ranks be temporary until completion of the tour of duty just like wing commanders and national commanders?

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

Yes, Yes, and Maybe.   CAP will never have the justification for a 3 Star.  And all promotions above Major (Even LTC now it seems) are temporary at first, it would have to follow the same rules.  The reason to make Region commanders temporary O7's is to give  each level of command a rank, Region commanders are the only level that doesn't follow that rule.  We even offer easy promotions to Major for Group commanders to make the bottom end of that work.

[FW]

Making region commanders brigadier generals isn't a bad idea either, given their span of control. Why doesn't someone float this proposal to the National CC and take it to the CASAF? Would these ranks be temporary until completion of the tour of duty just like wing commanders and national commanders?

Do you really think the idea hasn't been submitted to the CSAF before?  I personally know of 3 times this proposal was made.  All 3 times the request was blown out of the sky (I would say water but.... )

I'm still trying to grasp the "significance" of such a change in our grade structure.  Region Commanders don't deal with state AG's, they don't deal with the pentagon and, other than for administrative purposes, have no operational mission.  They are a logistics link between the national commander and the wings and, a hoarder of cats  wing commanders.  They are members of the NEC and have a nice shiny gold badge to wear.  I can assure you, the grade will not be "temporary" if granted.  Except for a few special times, all our grade becomes "permanent".  IMHO, the grade is not of significance  however, the discussion does make an interesting read.

[TCMajor]

I am seeing a constant tread that the Region really does not do anything command like.  So, I think that an addition of an actual  command (mission) responsibility would have to come along with such a move. Such as, if you have a regional issue like the Gulf Oil incident then the Regional Commander would be on the hot seat for providing a cohesive regional response to the situation.  I would also think that a reduction/realignment in the number and makeup of regions would certainly be in order.  As there is no pay or cost involved, it simply becomes a question of: Does this position warrant a 1-star in command.  All aspects of the position have to be taken into consideration; span of control, true command authority, size and complexity of the Area of Responsibility.  Not to throw in those crazy CG(aux) guys, but I believe they have 1-stars at District.  Which is relatively the same concept as our region.  Yes, I know they call them something else, not Admirals but it is an example.  Sorry guys, but they really are the only organization that is even remotely similar to us.  It also would not hurt if it took a long time, relatively, to rise to that level, say maybe 15 to 20 years maybe more.  That way we possibly could keep the population of former 1-stars low.  And, yes I will say it, there should be a selection board that the Air Force participates in and has a significant say in the selection.  Just my 2-cents. 

[RiverAux]

Regional headquarters just don't have the manpower assigned to them to be able to really run a large ongoing mission themselves.  Heck, they may not even have an IC. 

At best, all they can really do is coordinate getting resources from other states to the states that need them. 

[High Speed Low Drag]

I am seeing a constant tread that the Region really does not do anything command like.  So, I think that an addition of an actual  command (mission) responsibility would have to come along with such a move. Such as, if you have a regional issue like the Gulf Oil incident then the Regional Commander would be on the hot seat for providing a cohesive regional response to the situation.  I would also think that a reduction/realignment in the number and makeup of regions would certainly be in order.  As there is no pay or cost involved, it simply becomes a question of: Does this position warrant a 1-star in command.  All aspects of the position have to be taken into consideration; span of control, true command authority, size and complexity of the Area of Responsibility.  Not to throw in those crazy CG(aux) guys, but I believe they have 1-stars at District.  Which is relatively the same concept as our region.  Yes, I know they call them something else, not Admirals but it is an example.  Sorry guys, but they really are the only organization that is even remotely similar to us.  It also would not hurt if it took a long time, relatively, to rise to that level, say maybe 15 to 20 years maybe more.  That way we possibly could keep the population of former 1-stars low.  And, yes I will say it, there should be a selection board that the Air Force participates in and has a significant say in the selection.  Just my 2-cents.

I think that Region Commanders should have command authority when incidents occur that span more than one wing (hurricane, oil spill, etc).  It makes operational sense.  Why can they not do that - why can they not have operational missions utilizing the various wings' resources under their control?  Instead of having multiple wings running their own ops & trying to coordinate them.  Seems like common sense to me. 

And they still don't have to have large staffs - a Region Commander can pick someone from whatever wing to be IC, or X or Y.  Pull the people you need for your incident staff, but do it under a Region Commander's jurisdiction, not a wings.

[SJFedor]

I am seeing a constant tread that the Region really does not do anything command like.  So, I think that an addition of an actual  command (mission) responsibility would have to come along with such a move. Such as, if you have a regional issue like the Gulf Oil incident then the Regional Commander would be on the hot seat for providing a cohesive regional response to the situation.  I would also think that a reduction/realignment in the number and makeup of regions would certainly be in order.  As there is no pay or cost involved, it simply becomes a question of: Does this position warrant a 1-star in command.  All aspects of the position have to be taken into consideration; span of control, true command authority, size and complexity of the Area of Responsibility.  Not to throw in those crazy CG(aux) guys, but I believe they have 1-stars at District.  Which is relatively the same concept as our region.  Yes, I know they call them something else, not Admirals but it is an example.  Sorry guys, but they really are the only organization that is even remotely similar to us.  It also would not hurt if it took a long time, relatively, to rise to that level, say maybe 15 to 20 years maybe more.  That way we possibly could keep the population of former 1-stars low.  And, yes I will say it, there should be a selection board that the Air Force participates in and has a significant say in the selection.  Just my 2-cents.

I think that Region Commanders should have command authority when incidents occur that span more than one wing (hurricane, oil spill, etc).  It makes operational sense.  Why can they not do that - why can they not have operational missions utilizing the various wings' resources under their control?  Instead of having multiple wings running their own ops & trying to coordinate them.  Seems like common sense to me. 

And they still don't have to have large staffs - a Region Commander can pick someone from whatever wing to be IC, or X or Y.  Pull the people you need for your incident staff, but do it under a Region Commander's jurisdiction, not a wings.

Not all Region Commanders are IC's. And IC's have corporate officer-like responsabilty and authority (that's why the Wing/CC needs to approve their qualification). They can authorize aircrews to cross state boundaries to prosecute missions, they can request additional resources from other wings (request, not take) and they always have the NOC to call if they have a big need. And if it's a large, multi-state mission, typically the NOC does all the coordinating, and there typically is one IC-1 at the top running the show.

Don't forget, most of the missions we do are not done under the wing's jurisdiction, but rather 1AF or whomever the requesting agency is. It's their world, we just dance in it. However it is typical that whichever wing geographically falls into where the party is, they typically run the show.

[flyboy53]

Making region commanders brigadier generals isn't a bad idea either, given their span of control. Why doesn't someone float this proposal to the National CC and take it to the CASAF? Would these ranks be temporary until completion of the tour of duty just like wing commanders and national commanders?

Do you really think the idea hasn't been submitted to the CSAF before?  I personally know of 3 times this proposal was made.  All 3 times the request was blown out of the sky (I would say water but.... )

I'm still trying to grasp the "significance" of such a change in our grade structure.  Region Commanders don't deal with state AG's, they don't deal with the pentagon and, other than for administrative purposes, have no operational mission.  They are a logistics link between the national commander and the wings and, a hoarder of cats  wing commanders.  They are members of the NEC and have a nice shiny gold badge to wear.  I can assure you, the grade will not be "temporary" if granted.  Except for a few special times, all our grade becomes "permanent".  IMHO, the grade is not of significance  however, the discussion does make an interesting read.

Unfortunately, I am aware that it has been submitted many times to CSAF.  Each time, however, I was certain that the reason was more political than functional. I'm just as certain that that isn't what drives such suggestions now.

[ZigZag911]

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

CGAUX, which is much smaller than CAP, has a 3 star national CC, and, I believe,  two 2 stars and a handful of 1 stars in command or national staff slots.

[RiverAux]

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

CGAUX, which is much smaller than CAP, has a 3 star national CC, and, I believe,  two 2 stars and a handful of 1 stars in command or national staff slots.

Keep in mind that while they may have a star they do not have ranks.  It is merely a representation of their office. 

[Eclipse]

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

CGAUX, which is much smaller than CAP, has a 3 star national CC, and, I believe,  two 2 stars and a handful of 1 stars in command or national staff slots.

Wiki says the USCGAux Commander is a Commodore, which is at best 1-star.

[SJFedor]

But lets do one thing at a time. There aren't enough numbers (members) in this organization to justify three stars for a national commander and the same justification may apply to region commanders.

CGAUX, which is much smaller than CAP, has a 3 star national CC, and, I believe,  two 2 stars and a handful of 1 stars in command or national staff slots.

Wiki says the USCGAux Commander is a Commodore, which is at best 1-star.

Also from the Wiki:

While Auxiliarists wear military style rank insignia, they do not use military titles. For example, a Flotilla Commander (FC) wears insignia similar to a USCG Lieutenant, but is never referred to as "Lieutenant." The title most commonly used in official correspondence and reports is "Auxiliarist", and its abbreviations (e.g., AUX J. Smith).  Exceptions to this rule are elected or appointed Commodores, who wear one to three stars depending on their office, and are the only Auxiliarists who use a military style title ("Commodore") before their name.

[RiverAux]

And also keep in mind that CG Aux members generally don't wear their office insignia when working around the CG (not supposed to at all, but sometimes local CG commanders make exceptions).  In other words, there is very little potential for CG members having any grief over the office insignia worn by CG Aux. 

[SARDOC]

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blchancommand.htm

Check out the link above.  If you want to make it comparable ...maybe the National Commander should have at least three stars.  The Region commanders should have one star.   
I know it's not important as far as pay is concerned, but it's emblematic of their authority and experience.  Just food for thought.

I find it interesting to note that you chose an Army-centric reference to justify a change in the grade structure of the USAF Auxiliary.

Personally, harking back to a comment I have made before, grade in CAP means what grade in CAP means and comparison between that and the military is problematic at best.

I did choose an Army Centric reference because that was the only one I could find that referenced personnel levels with the same military type grade structure that is inflicted upon us by the USAF and NHQ.

CAP grade structure is relevant only to CAP so CAP should be able to dictate how it's used...but we can't the USAF (aka. THE MILITARY)has the ultimate decision over our MILITARY type grade structure.  Thus the Army reference.  If we are going to use that system we should use the grades for what they represent in that system.

I personally don't really care I was just trying to provide information to generate discussion.  I don't care what rank structure we use...even if we adopted something similar to the Coast Guard Auxiliary..without all the fancy grade insignia.  The Mission is what is important.  However we have members who continue to volunteer with this organization for the recognition that is associated with promotion with increasing levels of responsibilities and/or authority.

thanks

[MIKE]

And also keep in mind that CG Aux members generally don't wear their office insignia when working around the CG (not supposed to at all, but sometimes local CG commanders make exceptions).  In other words, there is very little potential for CG members having any grief over the office insignia worn by CG Aux.

That's not what the AUXMAN says. "A.9. ... Auxiliarists, when working as crew on a Coast Guard vessel, shall wear only the member device (Auxiliary emblem) as collar insignia."

[FW]

Unfortunately, I am aware that it has been submitted many times to CSAF.  Each time, however, I was certain that the reason was more political than functional. I'm just as certain that that isn't what drives such suggestions now.

My dear CT colleague, everything done at the national level in CAP is political.  However, as far as our discussion is concerned; you are right on the money.