Main Menu

Why 21 to be an officer?

Started by davedove, September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

davedove

In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.

Is there a reason for this requirement, or is it just a historical anomoly from when the voting age was 21? ;)
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Pylon

Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.

Is there a reason for this requirement, or is it just a historical anomoly from when the voting age was 21? ;)

I think the requirement has more to do with the fact that most commissioned officers are 21 or older at the time of commissioning.  Apparently it's rare, though it does happen, for people to be commissioned at 20.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.

Is there a reason for this requirement, or is it just a historical anomoly from when the voting age was 21? ;)

I don't have a reference, but I believe that the military requires it for commisions. Besides, would you really want an 18 year old running around with lt's bars?  :)

bosshawk

Actually, it is mostly a tradition in the military(I think) that officers be 21. I happened to have been commissioned in the Army 8 days short of my 21st birthday and nobody ever said anything about that.  When I was commissioned(in the dark ages), regulations were interpreted very strictly, so doubt that there was a law about 21.  You might have read that in WWII and Korea, there were tons of guys commissioned at 18 and 19.  I had a friend who was a 19 year old B-17 aircraft commander, who had been shot down four times by that time.

CAP may have a reg that says you have to be 21 to become an officer: I simply don't know.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

O-Rex

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 06, 2007, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.

Is there a reason for this requirement, or is it just a historical anomoly from when the voting age was 21? ;)

I don't have a reference, but I believe that the military requires it for commisions. Besides, would you really want an 18 year old running around with lt's bars?  :)

Let's rephrase: it has to be 21: would you really want an 18 year old running around in bars?

Pylon

Quote from: bosshawk on September 06, 2007, 04:06:54 PM
CAP may have a reg that says you have to be 21 to become an officer: I simply don't know.

Uh, CAP does.  Hence, the Flight Officer grades.  You have to be 21 in Civil Air Patrol to hold grade of 2d Lt or above.  If you are 18 or older, but under 21 you can earn Flight Officer grades (FO, TFO, SFO).
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

pixelwonk

and that would be CAPR 35-5

QuoteSECTION G - FLIGHT OFFICER GRADES
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades. This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21. Upon reaching age 21, the member will be appointed to an appropriate officer grade or will be classified as a senior member without grade until he or she is eligible for promotion to officer grade. yadda yadda yadda...

davedove

Quote from: tedda on September 06, 2007, 04:20:51 PM
and that would be CAPR 35-5

QuoteSECTION G - FLIGHT OFFICER GRADES
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades. This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21. Upon reaching age 21, the member will be appointed to an appropriate officer grade or will be classified as a senior member without grade until he or she is eligible for promotion to officer grade. yadda yadda yadda...

I know what the reg says, but WHY is it in there?  The age for military commissions makes the most sense so far, but with a quick search what I generally find is requirements for college to get a commission, not age.  Granted, most people reach a certain age before they get the required college, but not always.  And since we don't require college for our members, maybe the age requirement was put in.

It just seems strange to me to create this whole rank structure for only a small portion of our members.  Especially since when a member hits 21, he is automatically rolled into the other grade structure.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

IceNine

Anybody know what the requirements where for Air Force FO's when they had them?

That may have something to do with it.
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

O-Rex

Quote from: mfd1506 on September 06, 2007, 04:29:53 PM
Anybody know what the requirements where for Air Force FO's when they had them?

That may have something to do with it.

Not really: FO's were pilots who didn't have a degree (Chuck Yeager started out as one, and was converted to 2nd Lt when the rank was eliminated, before he shipped out to Europe)

Army "high school to flight school" warrants must be 18.5 yrs old upon completion of training to become a WO1.

Speculation: If you are running a Cadet Program for 12 to 21 year-olds, wouldn't the opportunity of making them "officers" prior detract from the program?  What's the incentive for a 20 year-old to get his or her Spaatz (then SR Capt shortly thereafter) when they could achieve the same results joining as a senior at age 18?

JohnKachenmeister

I was told that there was a law at one time requiring commissioned officers to be age 21 or older.  When I was commissioned (1978) our graduation date was moved up a week for some reason or another, which put one of our classmates at graduation just shy of her 21st birthday.  They had to get Dept. of the Army authority to "Frock" her with the 2LT bar until her actual date of rank, which was her birthday.  That way she could go through graduation with us.

My dad was a World War II bombardier, and he told me that he was 19 and long when he finished bombardier training, and was appointed a Flight Officer.  He was commissioned a 2LT when he turned 21, on Saipan.  It was a non-event, nothing changed except his rank insignia.  No ceremony, his aircraft commander gave him the paperwork and told him to stop by the PX and buy a set of gold bars.

I tried to find that law once before, and I couldn't.  Also, a lot of folks have told me that recently they have been commissioned 2LT before turning 21. 
Another former CAP officer

IceNine

So the situation with your father answers the question.

We do it cause that air force used to, and we just haven't changed.  Our only option would be to require that everyone under 21 be a cadet, if we were to get rid of the FO grades.

On second thought we could just make them SMWOG for 3 years which would probably go over like a lead balloon
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

Cecil DP

Quote from: Pylon on September 06, 2007, 04:16:27 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on September 06, 2007, 04:06:54 PM
CAP may have a reg that says you have to be 21 to become an officer: I simply don't know.

Uh, CAP does.  Hence, the Flight Officer grades.  You have to be 21 in Civil Air Patrol to hold grade of 2d Lt or above.  If you are 18 or older, but under 21 you can earn Flight Officer grades (FO, TFO, SFO).

If a cadet transferred to senior membership at 18, he/she could become a Captain upon reaching 21 by completing Level II and having the TIG as a TFO or SFO.
FO: 18 y/o, and Level I and 3 mos as SM
TFO: Technician rating and 6 mos as FO
SFO: Level II and 12 mos as TFO
CPT: upon turning 21
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85

IceNine

Also applies to those walking in off the street that are over 18 but not 21, not just former cadets
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

topsecret

Air Force commissioned officers must be at least 18 years of age, AFI 36-2005.  As a practical matter, however, most of them are going to be 21-22 due to the college degree requirement.

The general public isn't really attuned to the difference between an Air Force and a CAP officer.  The Air Force probably wants people of a certain age (and hopefully, maturity) to wear a uniform which resembles that of its officer corps.  I can't say that I blame them.  A teenage lieutenant doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Yes, yes, I know Cadet Example-to-All is more mature than most seniors...but you asked and I gave my best answer.

Other Background:  The Air Force flight officer program was an attempted fix for the inequities encountered by flying sergeants.  These flyers were instead appointed as "flight officers" and given a blue bar as grade insignia.  This enhanced unit cohesion among flyers, since they were all "officers and gentlemen" instead of "us vs. them."  General Yeager was a flight officer, incidentally...when he signed up for flight school, they were still offering sergeant's stripes and he knew those got you out of KP.

MIKE

Quote from: mfd1506 on September 06, 2007, 05:53:40 PMOn second thought we could just make them SMWOG for 3 years which would probably go over like a lead balloon

In the eyes of NHQ they technically are... and flight officer grades are not an entitlement either.  You are supposed to be in a leadership or supervisory position to hold these grades.
Mike Johnston

smj58501

Lets cut through the regulatory reasons and get to the practical one.

21 makes sense. That way a newly minted commissioned officer has no excuse why they can't (legally) buy the other officers a drink after the commissioning ceremony (in keeping with time honored military tradition).

>:D Bottoms up, L-T
Sean M. Johnson
Lt Col, CAP
Chief of Staff
ND Wing CAP

gallagheria

I have no problem with 21. In fact, as we have posted on other topics, I feel we should mirror the Air Force in nearly all requirements for a commission. If a person is a pilot with no college degree, then make them a warrant officer like the Army does. If they have a college degree, commission them. Plain and simple. I see no reason why we have no NCO grades. This whole mess we have where everyone gets a commission as an adult further complicates things.

jeders

Quote from: gallagheria on September 06, 2007, 07:47:31 PM
This whole mess we have where everyone gets a commission as an adult further complicates things.

Uhh, technically none of us are commissioned, not even General Pineda.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

davedove

Quote from: smj58501 on September 06, 2007, 07:36:39 PM
Lets cut through the regulatory reasons and get to the practical one.

21 makes sense. That way a newly minted commissioned officer has no excuse why they can't (legally) buy the other officers a drink after the commissioning ceremony (in keeping with time honored military tradition).

>:D Bottoms up, L-T

Now we know the real truth behind the regulation. :D
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

RiverAux

Personaly, I don't see any legitimate reason that over 18 senior members shouldn't be officers, but then again I think the cadet program should end at 18.  If you end cadet at 18 then it makes sense to allow for 18-21 year old officers, but as long as the cadet program can run until 21 we might as well keep it the way it is. 

IceNine

I never thought I would say this but having been in all 3 parts of the program (cadet, FO, Senior)

There is a certain value for former cadets to be FO's first.  That value being, that FO's are in my experience "throttled" by the surrounding staff and in that have a much needed opportunity to space themselves from the cadet program.
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

RiverAux

Anything we can do to keep cadets in the program and becoming full-fledged young officers is a plus for CAP.  We lose almost all of them now and I think one of the reasons, not the main one, is the flight officer system. 

Ned

Just a brief off-topic reminder while folks are discussing throwing babies out with the bathwater:

The concepts of "adulthood" and "cadethood" are logically and historically unrelated.  Apples and oranges.

An "adult" is simply anyone who has achieved their 18th birthday.  (That age has changed several times in our nation's history and could change again.)

A "cadet" is a military student, most often in training to become an officer. 

Both CAP and the USAF have cadets that are above and below the age of 18.

No, really.  There are several thousand cadets over the age of 18 in the USAF at this very moment.

Historically, West Point has had cadets over the age of 40.


If Uncle Sam doesn't draw some sort of artificial line for cadets at 18, why should we?

You may now return to your discussion of Flight Officer grades. . .


But remind me, what problem are we trying to fix here by lopping off the Flight Officer grades (and/or a significant portion of our highly successful cadet program)?



arajca

Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.

Is there a reason for this requirement, or is it just a historical anomoly from when the voting age was 21? ;)
I believe it because some other agency said "CAP officers shall be at least 21 years of age."

ddelaney103

Quote from: Ned on September 06, 2007, 11:25:29 PM
Just a brief off-topic reminder while folks are discussing throwing babies out with the bathwater:

The concepts of "adulthood" and "cadethood" are logically and historically unrelated.  Apples and oranges.

An "adult" is simply anyone who has achieved their 18th birthday.  (That age has changed several times in our nation's history and could change again.)

A "cadet" is a military student, most often in training to become an officer. 

Both CAP and the USAF have cadets that are above and below the age of 18.

No, really.  There are several thousand cadets over the age of 18 in the USAF at this very moment.

Historically, West Point has had cadets over the age of 40.

If Uncle Sam doesn't draw some sort of artificial line for cadets at 18, why should we?

You may now return to your discussion of Flight Officer grades. . .

But remind me, what problem are we trying to fix here by lopping off the Flight Officer grades (and/or a significant portion of our highly successful cadet program)?

You're the one comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, the AF has USAFA and JROTC, but they don't try brigading them together or expect one program will cover children and young adults from 13 to 21.

Right now CAP has 4 classes of people:


  • Youths (Cadets under 18)

  • Adults (over 21)

  • "Kinda Adults" (FO's, who are SM's but can't have SM grade - because while 30 yr old Lt Col's and 21 yr old Capt's are OK, for some reason the idea of an 18 yr old 2nd Lt makes people break out in "OMG!" and "OH NOES!")

  • "opt outs" (Cadets who are adults but want to be protected like Youths).


It seems we should have a method to bring all our adults under the same system.  I have no problem with the 18+ crowd continuing to study and test in the CP and have the opportunities for IACE and other cool Cadet stuff, but in the end they should be working with adults and not brigading with the middle schoolers.

Finally, since grade adds no authority or responsibilities to a SM, the idea of special grades to the under 21 crowd is silly.  If we trust them enough to let them in CAP, they're worthy of the (lack of) responsibilities and authorities of regular SM grade.

RiverAux

Ah, don't forget that "pre-cadet" program we're starting....

O-Rex

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 06, 2007, 05:44:12 PM

My dad was a World War II bombardier, and he told me that he was 19 and long when he finished bombardier training, and was appointed a Flight Officer.  He was commissioned a 2LT when he turned 21, on Saipan.  It was a non-event, nothing changed except his rank insignia.  No ceremony, his aircraft commander gave him the paperwork and told him to stop by the PX and buy a set of gold bars.

Eerily familiar:

He was promoted to 2LT when he was in CAP 6 months.  It was a non-event, nothing changed except his rank insignia.  No ceremony, his squadron commander gave him the paperwork and told him to go online to Vanguard and buy a set of epaulets.  ;)

Cecil DP

#28
Historically there are many distingushed officers who were commissioned before the age of 21.

BG William "Billy' Mitchell, USA 18
MG Smedley D. Butler, USMC, 16, Awarded 2 Medals of Honor
GEN Robert M. Cushman, USMC, 20, Commandant USMC, 1972-75
LT George Bush, USN, 17, President of the United States
Col Oliver Wendell Holmes, 18, Justice of the Supreme Court
LTG Arthur MacArthur, 18, Medal of Honor,
Maj Audie Murphy, 18, Medal of Honor, DSC, etc
GA Omar N. Bradley, 20, 1st Chairman JCS
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85

Cecil DP

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 06, 2007, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.


I don't have a reference, but I believe that the military requires it for commisions. Besides, would you really want an 18 year old running around with Lt's bars?  :)

Actually you can be a "Commissioned " Officer in CAP if you already have a federally recognized commission. Many years ago we had a cadet who was nominated for the West Point Prep School at the age of 18. Unfortunately he didn't speak math and dropped out. He than enlisted in the MDARNG and attended their Officer Candidate School and was commissioned at the age of 18 (maybe 19). With that he was eligible for 2Lt in CAP before turning 21. He might even still be a member in NATCAP Wing
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85

Ned

#30
Quote from: ddelaney103 on September 07, 2007, 02:12:08 AM
You're the one comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, the AF has USAFA and JROTC, but they don't try brigading them together or expect one program will cover children and young adults from 13 to 21.

I'm not seeing your point.

Uncle Sam has cadets over and under 18 in every service because all of those cadets are in training, not performing missions.

Kinda like CAP.

The whole point of the cadet program is leadership training; performing ES is a useful and optional part of the program.

The whole point of the senior program is to perform missions; ES, AE, and/or CP.  Leadership training is a useful and optional part of the senior program.

I have no huge investment in the FO program.  If we could actually identify a problem with it, we could modify it as necessary.  Heck, we did that with the old Warrant Officer program that existed before.

But as near as I can tell, some folks just don't like the FO program.  And I am concerned that they will advocate taking action to "fix" the still undefined problem and in doing so harm our outstanding cadet program that has succeeded for over half a century while working with young men and women up to the age of 21.




Eagle400

Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:09:37 AMThe whole point of the senior program is to perform missions; ES, AE, and/or CP.  Leadership training is a useful and optional part of the senior program.

Yes, but leadership training should be required for the senior program, just as it is for the cadets.  How can anyone expect an officer to be an officer if he/she doesn't have the tools they need to lead and be effective at communication and management?

Sorry, but you show me a CAP officer that has not taken leadership training, and I'll show you an officer I can't trust to be effective.     

Ned

Quote from: ♠ on September 07, 2007, 06:17:05 AM
Yes, but leadership training should be required for the senior program, just as it is for the cadets.  How can anyone expect an officer to be an officer if he/she doesn't have the tools they need to lead and be effective at communication and management?

Sorry, but you show me a CAP officer that has not taken leadership training, and I'll show you an officer I can't trust to be effective.     

I don't really disagree.  We should require more leadership training for promotion.

Remember, you can get promoted to Lieutenant Colonel with less than two weeks of leadership training spread over several decades.

(a weekend's worth of SLS, another for CLC, and a whole week of RSC.  And of course the majority of those curricula are actually technical stuff rather than leadership training, so the reality is much, much less)




Hawk200

#33
Quote from: Cecil DP on September 07, 2007, 05:54:31 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 06, 2007, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: davedove on September 06, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
In another thread Flight Officers were brought up.  The only reason we even have those grades is because of senior members who are not yet 21.


I don't have a reference, but I believe that the military requires it for commisions. Besides, would you really want an 18 year old running around with Lt's bars?  :)

Actually you can be a "Commissioned " Officer in CAP if you already have a federally recognized commission. Many years ago we had a cadet who was nominated for the West Point Prep School at the age of 18. Unfortunately he didn't speak math and dropped out. He than enlisted in the MDARNG and attended their Officer Candidate School and was commissioned at the age of 18 (maybe 19). With that he was eligible for 2Lt in CAP before turning 21. He might even still be a member in NATCAP Wing

An interesting case. However, there are no Civil Air Patrol commissions. Military commisions do not create a commissioned Civil Air Patrol officer. A military officer still wears a CAP uniform as an American citizen, not as a military member.

Hawk200

Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:57:17 AM
Quote from: ♠ on September 07, 2007, 06:17:05 AM
Yes, but leadership training should be required for the senior program, just as it is for the cadets.  How can anyone expect an officer to be an officer if he/she doesn't have the tools they need to lead and be effective at communication and management?

Sorry, but you show me a CAP officer that has not taken leadership training, and I'll show you an officer I can't trust to be effective.     

I don't really disagree.  We should require more leadership training for promotion.

Remember, you can get promoted to Lieutenant Colonel with less than two weeks of leadership training spread over several decades.

(a weekend's worth of SLS, another for CLC, and a whole week of RSC.  And of course the majority of those curricula are actually technical stuff rather than leadership training, so the reality is much, much less)

I would agree as well. Even many of the enlisted schools that the military offers have a great deal of  useful information. They could be tailored to CAP very easily. Plus, there are more than a few schools that CAP recognizes in lieu of CAP courses because they have that kind of leadership information.

flyguy06

I dont think the requirement to be 21 in CAP has anything to do with the military rules. CAP officers are NOT commissioned officers. SO it does not equate. Its just a rule CAP put down. There probably int some big rreason for it. Maybe because the minimum age to be a Senior member is 21 if you are a former cadet. I think its a stretch to equate it to the military

mikeylikey

^  I think we still have the 21 age for "Officers" in CAP because of legal crap on the Corporate side.
What's up monkeys?

Hawk200

Quote from: mikeylikey on September 16, 2007, 07:11:01 PM
^  I think we still have the 21 age for "Officers" in CAP because of legal crap on the Corporate side.

For all we know, it may be an Air Force mandate that 21 is a requirement to be a full officer. Until we find something in writing, we just don't know.

Even if the Air Force did make it a requirement, I wonder where it would be in black and white. There seems to be a lot of unwritten "unrules".

SDF_Specialist

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 18, 2007, 03:28:29 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 16, 2007, 07:11:01 PM
^  I think we still have the 21 age for "Officers" in CAP because of legal crap on the Corporate side.

For all we know, it may be an Air Force mandate that 21 is a requirement to be a full officer. Until we find something in writing, we just don't know.

Even if the Air Force did make it a requirement, I wonder where it would be in black and white. There seems to be a lot of unwritten "unrules".

Hawk, I would assume that it would be in the 35-5, but it only says that for an officer to get the grades, they must be 21. I agree that there should be an explaination as to why. Of course, it doesn't effect me, but it would be nice to know so that members can explain to other members why it is the way it is.
SDF_Specialist

Hawk200

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
Hawk, I would assume that it would be in the 35-5, but it only says that for an officer to get the grades, they must be 21. I agree that there should be an explaination as to why. Of course, it doesn't effect me, but it would be nice to know so that members can explain to other members why it is the way it is.

Unfortunately, regs rarely explain their justifications. We just follow the reg.

As for the explanation, I too would be interested in hearing it, but I'm a little skeptical when it comes to some of the Air Force's stories. We've heard that we won't be authorized a boonie hat because it's a "combat" item (most people in a combat theater wear a Kevlar) to we can't have subdued nametapes because of Geneva convention stipulations (which considering that I've seen Army JROTC cadets wearing subdued tapes, I really don't buy that one either).

But you never know, the Air Force may surprise us and give us a legitimate reason. I think that if CAP and the Air Force were a little more honest with each other, we might actually be able to work together a little better.

Falshrmjgr

IMHO, it seems to me that its real purpose is discourage brand new 18 year olds from becoming SMs and "Supervising" their 17 1/2 Year old buddies.

It encourages them to remain in the Cadet System, and allows them time to mature.


As far as commissions go, it is VERY common to see 19 year old 2LTs.  Just look at any of the Military Junior Colleges with "Early Commissioning Programs"  Marion, Kemper, etc...
Jaeger

"Some say there are only wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in the world.  They forget the feral sheep."

Major Carrales

Seems to be having all CAP Offiers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any. 8)
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

SDF_Specialist

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 18, 2007, 03:44:33 PM
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
Hawk, I would assume that it would be in the 35-5, but it only says that for an officer to get the grades, they must be 21. I agree that there should be an explaination as to why. Of course, it doesn't effect me, but it would be nice to know so that members can explain to other members why it is the way it is.

Unfortunately, regs rarely explain their justifications. We just follow the reg.

As for the explanation, I too would be interested in hearing it, but I'm a little skeptical when it comes to some of the Air Force's stories. We've heard that we won't be authorized a boonie hat because it's a "combat" item (most people in a combat theater wear a Kevlar) to we can't have subdued nametapes because of Geneva convention stipulations (which considering that I've seen Army JROTC cadets wearing subdued tapes, I really don't buy that one either).

But you never know, the Air Force may surprise us and give us a legitimate reason. I think that if CAP and the Air Force were a little more honest with each other, we might actually be able to work together a little better.

Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.
SDF_Specialist

Hawk200

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way.  ;D

mikeylikey

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 18, 2007, 04:04:25 PM
Seems to be having all CAP Officers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any. 8)

Well end the Cadet program at 18, and there is that same line....right?  So that basis is unfortunately mute.
What's up monkeys?

Major Carrales

Quote from: mikeylikey on September 19, 2007, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 18, 2007, 04:04:25 PM
Seems to be having all CAP Officers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any. 8)

Well end the Cadet program at 18, and there is that same line....right?  So that basis is unfortunately mute.

I agree. the program should end at 18.  But that is another issue.   18 woudl amke Flight officers a moot point.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

mikeylikey

^ Agree!  We need (as a country) decide when a person is considered an Adult.  Totally different topic, sorry Captalkers....... :-*
What's up monkeys?

flyguy06

Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

davedove

#48
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important?

Of course there needs to be a reason.  Otherwise you wind up with everyone doing something just because that's the way it's always done.  That attitude leaves no allowance for improvement.

I would bet there are many cases of a reg being originally written because the Air Force (or even Army Air Corps) did it that way when the reg was written.  Done through the years, the regulation remains in effect because "it's always been done that way."  Meanwhile, conditions have changed and the Air Force updates their regulations.  Now, the original reason for the CAP reg, because the AF does it that way, no longer applies.

It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

jimmydeanno

Quote from: davedove on September 20, 2007, 11:51:55 AM
It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined from occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.

I surely hope that your shoes were tied while typing that because on wednesday's between the hours of 7-9 in your state it is illegal to type with your shoes untied if your three legged horse is stabled within 75 feet of the road.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

davedove

Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 20, 2007, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: davedove on September 20, 2007, 11:51:55 AM
It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined from occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.

I surely hope that your shoes were tied while typing that because on wednesday's between the hours of 7-9 in your state it is illegal to type with your shoes untied if your three legged horse is stabled within 75 feet of the road.

It's a good thing it's Thursday then.  Otherwise I would have to go move my horse. ;D
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Hawk200

Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

We weren't talking about soldiers we were talking about airman. No I don't think they wear Kevlars all day, but if they don't have a Kevlar on, they should be wearing a PC not a boonie.  According to the CENTAF supplements, the boonie isn't authorized. They may do it, but they're wrong.

A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Falshrmjgr

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 20, 2007, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

We weren't talking about soldiers we were talking about airman. No I don't think they wear Kevlars all day, but if they don't have a Kevlar on, they should be wearing a PC not a boonie.  According to the CENTAF supplements, the boonie isn't authorized. They may do it, but they're wrong.

A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

<sarcasm>
Yep.  Absolutely. All those SF/CAG type guys running around in their unauthorized boots, boonie caps, and black watch caps are a serious threat to the good order, morale, and discipline of the entire THEATER and should be immediately been subjected to Field Grade Article 15 proceedings.

I hate it when common sense gets in the way of the strict enforcement of regulations.
</sarcasm>
Jaeger

"Some say there are only wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in the world.  They forget the feral sheep."

Hawk200

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 20, 2007, 03:06:10 PM
<sarcasm>
Yep.  Absolutely. All those SF/CAG type guys running around in their unauthorized boots, boonie caps, and black watch caps are a serious threat to the good order, morale, and discipline of the entire THEATER and should be immediately been subjected to Field Grade Article 15 proceedings.

I hate it when common sense gets in the way of the strict enforcement of regulations.
</sarcasm>

Too bad the sarcasm doesn't include a reality factor. I'm well aware of special ops types that have uniform exemptions for legitmate reasons. I've dealt with a few of them over the past 18 years. But it is quite clear that those types have those exemptions in writing somewhere. It would be monumentally stupid for our special operators to be in standard military clothing and gear. But despite those exemptions, they still have rules they need to follow. Their rules are just different.

What I'm addressing is the normal types on the post that don't go "outside the wire" or aren't doing the secret squirrel stuff. They don't need custom LBE in MultiCam, and they don't need to be running around in hunting boots, or wearing boonies, and they should have appropriate insignia. They don't have the exemptions those guys have. Therefore, if they are ignoring uniform regs, there is legitimate concern that there will be other regs they will ignore. That's the point I was making.

In the future, you might want to read somebody's previous posts before you assume complete ignorance. Your three days on the board does not put you in the know as far as any other poster is concerned. Try to make use of that common sense in the future.

Falshrmjgr

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 21, 2007, 12:14:20 AM
In the future, you might want to read somebody's previous posts before you assume complete ignorance. Your three days on the board does not put you in the know as far as any other poster is concerned. Try to make use of that common sense in the future.

Ahh now I understand, this noobie needs to learn his place.  In fact I made no assumption about your experience.  I've had this conversation before w/ E9's with 25+ years experience.

No, what I disagree with is the attitude that regulations are holy writ.  Two points I will highlight, and I will leave it alone.

Firstly,  regulations are both hindsight and predictive.  They are based on past experience, and are written generally by staff officers who are trying to PREDICT the future needs and environment the force will face.

Secondly, some things need to be thrown out the window in Theater for a number of reasons:
1.  Something is stupid and will get people killed.
2.  Something is silly, and has no bearing on the mission.
3.  Something is just piss poor for morale.

SO... you are saying that these troops, stuck in theater, trying to do their best to get along, need to get some kiwi on their boots, put their K-Pots on, and get their bunks ready for inspection?

Give me a break.  The sign of a unit that is mission ready is clean rifles, regardless of the state of their uniforms, etc...

Conversely, perhaps you are offended by those "POGUES" sitting in the rear trying to look like they are high speed, low drag?  Who cares?  Do they get their jobs done?  Is their morale better for feeling like they are "getting away with something?" 

You used a logical fallacy of a straw man argument to support a fallacious argument.  You stated the following:

Quote
A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Somehow you elliptically equate "boonie cap wearing" with violating a reg that would get someone killed, as if there is a slippery slope between boonie caps and the end of the universe.  (Yes, that IS hyperbole)

Discipline is NOT synonymous with the blind adherence to regulations.  And leadership is sure as hell not quoting obscure regulations to gain some sort of moral high ground.

Now regulations DO have uses, and they are a tool.  Believe me, I  cite chapter and verse when I see some wanna be thug with his pants hanging off his butt, wearing a do-rag throwing gang-signs.

SO I hurt your feelings?  I didn't genuflect properly to your "Salty & Seasoned" Status?  Because I'm new here, I should keep my mouth shut?  Excuse me, but no.

There are many people here, and they have a right to hear opposing views, and I have a duty to speak up and make an on the spot correction when needed.

And the next time you make a disparaging remark to gain the morale high ground, I will follow up with the admins, regardless if they are your buddies or not.  Making a comment about my time is not only unwarranted, it is out of line.

Now I thought about sending this to you as a PM, but since you thought to chastise me in public, I thought I would return the favor.

Jaeger

"Some say there are only wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in the world.  They forget the feral sheep."

SAR-EMT1

On of the more thought provoking things I learned in AFROTC... right after "the gun is made by the lowest bidder"...  "Regulations are there to ASSIST  the Commanding Officer"... "the ADG/IG may then procede to enter the Generals' Office a Field Grade Officer and leave a Company Grade Officer"

::)
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

Hawk200

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAhh now I understand, this noobie needs to learn his place.  In fact I made no assumption about your experience.  I've had this conversation before w/ E9's with 25+ years experience.

Nope. The point was that the noobie doesn't know me, and didn't have anyplace jumping on his soapbox about my statements. But you apparently choose to be offended.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMNo, what I disagree with is the attitude that regulations are holy writ.

Still wrong. There are regs that are exempted because they interfere with the mission. I have no problem with legitimate exemptions. I do have problems with people that decide to ignore regs when they don't feel like it. I would surmise from your response that you approve of that behaviour.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMFirstly,  regulations are both hindsight and predictive.  They are based on past experience, and are written generally by staff officers who are trying to PREDICT the future needs and environment the force will face.

Secondly, some things need to be thrown out the window in Theater for a number of reasons:
1.  Something is stupid and will get people killed.

Agreed.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AM2.  Something is silly, and has no bearing on the mission.

Who makes that decision? And how do you go about it? If you just choose to ignore it, that's wrong. Bring it up to the chain. Tell them "This is stupid and will get people hurt". You don't say "I'm not going to follow that today". Most of the time, it will be acknowledged. Do it the right way, not your own way.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AM3.  Something is just piss poor for morale.

War is poor on morale. Blaming regs is irresponsible.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMSO... you are saying that these troops, stuck in theater, trying to do their best to get along, need to get some kiwi on their boots, put their K-Pots on, and get their bunks ready for inspection?

Nope, not at all. Already explained this in my first response.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMConversely, perhaps you are offended by those "POGUES" sitting in the rear trying to look like they are high speed, low drag?  Who cares?  Do they get their jobs done?  Is their morale better for feeling like they are "getting away with something?"

So you advocate completely ignoring all the rules, just so someone feels better about "getting away with something"? Sounds like anarchy. 

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMYou used a logical fallacy of a straw man argument to support a fallacious argument.  You stated the following:

Quote
A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Somehow you elliptically equate "boonie cap wearing" with violating a reg that would get someone killed, as if there is a slippery slope between boonie caps and the end of the universe.  (Yes, that IS hyperbole)

The statement was that if people ignored what they consider "minor" regs, how long til they ignore "major" regs? I believe you misunderstood that my statement applied to people that don't have exemptions from certain regs.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMDiscipline is NOT synonymous with the blind adherence to regulations.

Agreed.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAnd leadership is sure as hell not quoting obscure regulations to gain some sort of moral high ground.

Some do. But you follow what the chain tells you to. They make the decisions as to what you follow and what you don't. There's a reason for regs that we lower chain personnel might not be privy to.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMNow regulations DO have uses, and they are a tool.  Believe me, I  cite chapter and verse when I see some wanna be thug with his pants hanging off his butt, wearing a do-rag throwing gang-signs.

Agreed. And correcting people as necessary is proper leadership.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMSO I hurt your feelings?  I didn't genuflect properly to your "Salty & Seasoned" Status?  Because I'm new here, I should keep my mouth shut?  Excuse me, but no.

There are many people here, and they have a right to hear opposing views, and I have a duty to speak up and make an on the spot correction when needed.

It's fine to make corrections. But you made an ignorant assumption. I'm fully aware of "special circumstances". I didn't advocate that uniform regs are the Holy Grail of winning a war. You made the the assumption that I did. Which if you had read any of my post history, you would have known better. You made a judgement without knowing that.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAnd the next time you make a disparaging remark to gain the morale high ground, I will follow up with the admins, regardless if they are your buddies or not.  Making a comment about my time is not only unwarranted, it is out of line.

Now I thought about sending this to you as a PM, but since you thought to chastise me in public, I thought I would return the favor.

Call it what you want, you've made your decision as to how you see it. Keep in mind your first response. You fired the first shot. I am guilty of continuing it. I'll admit that. Didn't intend to "take the moral high ground". But you don't have it either.

I'll let it go, and I apologize for escalating it. But I will not wholly accept blame.

Either way, this argument isn't relevant to the thread. It's best that we discontinue the debate.

SDF_Specialist

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 19, 2007, 05:42:29 AM
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way.  ;D

Didn't CAP have the old Army style nametapes? I can't think of the word off hand, but for some reason, I keep picturing in my mind the old green nametapes with the black lettering.
SDF_Specialist

Hawk200

Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 21, 2007, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 19, 2007, 05:42:29 AM
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way.  ;D

Didn't CAP have the old Army style nametapes? I can't think of the word off hand, but for some reason, I keep picturing in my mind the old green nametapes with the black lettering.

I don't think we ever did. I think that we've only ever had either white on green, or white on blue. As far as nametapes goes, we've been associated with the Air Force since 1948, which is well before most services even used nametapes on utility uniforms.

Of course, I've seen some people "unofficially" use subdued tapes. Not right, but it has been done.

JayT

There's no reason to have subdued nametapes.
Not now.
Not ten years ago.
Not ten years from now.
They can pry my white on ultramarine blue from my cold, dead fingers.

On the topic of FO.

Right now, I'm a nineteen year old Cadet Second Lieutenant. I live at home, and I commute to Stony Brook University every day. My squadron meets tuesday nights, and I very rarely have time to attend a meeting.

So this means that once or twice a month, I show up with Cadet insignia on, and don't really do much except plan some ES training classes. Thats patiently unfair to the Cadets of the staff.

So, in three weeks, I'm transfering to the SM grade, and in a few weeks or months I'll be wearing FO stripes.

"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

gallagheria

Quote from: JThemann on September 21, 2007, 09:35:51 PM
There's no reason to have subdued nametapes.
Then why a subdued (i.e., camo) uniform? Makes no sense.

SDF_Specialist

Quote from: gallagheria on September 22, 2007, 12:12:43 AM
Quote from: JThemann on September 21, 2007, 09:35:51 PM
There's no reason to have subdued nametapes.
Then why a subdued (i.e., camo) uniform? Makes no sense.

I just think subdued nametapes on the subdued uniform would be a moral booster. It would show non-CAP members that CAP is a serious organization. Then there's the people who may take the subdued nametapes too serious, and get a big head. Why not blue lettering on the green tapes just like the AF?
SDF_Specialist

Eagle400

Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 22, 2007, 12:22:55 AMI just think subdued nametapes on the subdued uniform would be a moral booster. It would show non-CAP members that CAP is a serious organization.

CAP doesn't need subdued nametapes on the BDU to show the public that it is a serious organization.  What CAP does need is honest leadership who don't go on ego trips and fire people just because they disagree with them, or people who come up with "Missions for America" or "More Than Meets the Skies" and treat the slogans as more important than a real mission statement.  Trust me, when it comes to morale, replacing people who need to go makes way more of a difference than changing a uniform item or items.    

Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 22, 2007, 12:22:55 AMThen there's the people who may take the subdued nametapes too serious, and get a big head.

Aaaah... you're beginning to see why they're not allowed for CAP...

Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 22, 2007, 12:22:55 AMWhy not blue lettering on the green tapes just like the AF?

Because the Air Force will never let CAP wear them.  Why?  Same reason they won't let CAP officers wear blue nametags and epaulets.  Looks too much like the Air Force.  There are other reasons, but this is a big one.

 

gistek

Personally I'd like to see an expansion of the senior NCO grades. You come in as a Senior Member. When you pass your Level I and CPPT you are promoted to FO1 or SSgt or similar. After time in grade and additional training/testing (like CLC) you go up to MSgt. Then another time in grade with completion of Technician rating in a specialty track and the next level of training/testing (maybe SLS) you get CMSgt. Then you take a third course - maybe leadership oriented or heavier on the military protocols & etc -  plus complete Senior rating in one or Technician rating in two specialty tracks to get your 2Lt. 1Lt would require time in grade, UCC, additional specialty track ratings (min SR in one and Tech in two). Capt and up would then be pretty much the same.

Using this method I would not yet qualify for 1Lt and might not qualify for 2Lt as I haven't had much training in the military protocols.

The time in grade could be compressed for seniors over age 21, but would be designed so that an 18 year old couldn't make 2Lt before their 21st birthday.

The 2Lt could also be offered as an special appointment to senior members who have a 4 year college degree related to their specialty track, but they would have to complete all the testing and training required for the lower ranks in order to be promoted. (1Lt could be the same way for a Masters degree)