Resubmission Requirements for Disapproved Promotion and/or Award Requests

[Cato the Younger]

This is from a memo that was in my email today! Instead of providing information and guidance on how to properly prepare a promotion or award package,  we are now supposed to wait six month between submitting paperwork for disapproval!

What am I suppose to tell people now?

This system is broken. Why not tell us how to submit a proper request, Bob? It would make your job easier.


3 August 2008

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL WING/CC, GLR/CAP

SUBJECT: Resubmission Requirements for Disapproved Promotion and/or Award Requests

FROM: Chairman, GLR/PAC
1. For approximately the last twelve (12) months, the Great Lakes Region Promotions and Awards Committee (GLR/PAC -the Board) has received many "resubmissions" for reconsideration of disapproved promotion requests to the temporary grade of Lt. Colonel or of disapproved award requests. In a number of cases, these resubmissions for reconsideration have been received within an extremely short period of time after the recommendations of the Board have been published. Many of these resubmissions have been received containing mostly irrelevant information,
2. Effective immediately, resubmissions for disapproved promotion and/or award requests will not be acceotedby the Board for a oeriod of six (6) months from the date of notification of disapproval by the Region Commander.
3. Any resubmissions that are received by the Board within that six (6)-month period will be returned.
4. Wing CCs are requested to distribute this memorandum to the Wing DPs.

Robert M. Karton, COL, CAP Chairman, GLR/PAC

Distribution:
GLR/CC
GLR/CY
GLR/CS

[Eclipse]

Prepare your initial submissions better and wait six months before resubmission.

[IceNine]

You could try to fight this as a broken system.. and I would back you IF

you had not received proper notification as to the findings of the board, and why the promotion/award had been denied.

As long as they are following those 2 simple rules there is absolutely no reason the review board should have to endure the same poorly written submissions over and over. 

So I guess the moral of the story here is, they are going to put it into the circular file.  They have just decided to notify us first

[lordmonar]

I don't understand what the problem is.

The regional board is just saying...that if they deny an award/promotion package....they don't want to see a resubmission for six months.

That is not a broken system.

If you submit a package and it gets kicked back.....go ahead and contact the board for some feed back....fix the package and resubmit after six months.

[Cato the Younger]

Why should we have to use the trial and error method? They way they are doing it now is submit paperwork and justification and get a critic's review of the package and your are told to wait six months. There is no readily available standard or benchmark to use as a guide or example.

Why not explain the expectation? It is easier to do the job correctly the first time if you know the criteria used to evaluate the request. Are they looking for a CAP version of a USAF OPR? Are they looking for a five paragraph essay on why I think Major Payne walks on water? How far back are they looking? Bob mentions irrelvant information without giving an example.

Take for example the duty performance promotion. Region has failed to provide clear and concise expectations for what it means to "be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended." One man's exemplary is another man's poor performance.

[lordmonar]

So.....as I said....ask for some feed back.

[Cato the Younger]

Like Bob said in his memo this has been going on for 12 months now. Plenty of people have asked for feedback and instead of being proactive and fixing the problem by outlining expectations, we get a memo that is effective immediately.

This is very much like Heller's Catch 22. If you submit the paper work you get denied and you have to wait six month before resubmitting again but, if you don't submit you don't get denied and can submit at any time to be denied.

I guess I was not clear in my original post. This is the first codified feedback the field has received concerning this issue. Talk about demoralizing. I have to imagine this is the conversation most unit commanders are having, "Major Payne you are doing a great job but, because we don't know what the region promotion board is looking for we have to submit your promotion in the blind and hope for the best. Once it is denied, they are always denied,  we will know what they are looking for so, I want you to look at this as a six month warning  you might get promoted. Keep up the good work and how about working on a wing project to really show the promotion board you really want to be promoted?"

[lordmonar]

Okay......sounds good to me.

If you got a problem with the regional promotions board....have you taken this up with you wing CC or the regional CC?

Don't harp on a broken system.....if you have not used said system.

As for the policy letter goes.....it sounds like sound management practices.

[Eclipse]

Any document which requires Region approval has generally moved through at least 3 other levels of echelon, presumably with an increasing level of experience and knowledge.  Don't blame Region if documents aren't completed correctly after 3 CC's have signed them.

I've personally received F2's with no indication of what they are for, incomplete or missing narratives, poor grammar, spelling, etc.

I can't speak for other wings, but mine provides advice and guidance on the correctness and completeness of various forms before sending them up.  Something I appreciate ad which has helped me the next time.

Narratives need to be complete and appropriate to the increased responsibility being anticipated with respect to a promotion.  Decorations need the same or more detail on why a respective action was "outstanding".

The days of the check-box promotions are over, at least in GLR.  You're not going to get any argument from me on this.

[Cato the Younger]

Yes, I have discussed this issue with the wing commander. He said he did not know why region was being stingy with promotions.

He is in a tough spot. You can't be a Chief if you have no Indians, people will leave because they are not being recognized in a timely manner for their contributions.

Speculation on the street is that GLR is squashing promotions because the region commander champions the NCO corps and thinks everyone should start out with stripes and that he is going to do the same thing they did in Iowa and kick all the LtCols and Majors, not on wing staff, back down to squadron grade. Also someone on wing staff said there are too many LtCols. so GLR is holding everyone back to thin out the herd. If any of that is true they should at least tell us so we know the "rules" and can readjust accordingly. If none of it is true GLR should at least recognize there is a void in the knowledge base of the general membership and it is being filled with rumor instead of fact.

Right now, the whole process is ambiguous and subjective and ripe for abuse.  In order to handle this situation ethically and with integrity GLR  must outline the expectations and supplement the regulations. To do otherwise, diminishes those finally recognized because some in the general membership will think advancement is not a matter of  what you know but, rather who you know.

[Cecil DP]

When a promotion is denied, the denying authority is required to provide a reason for the denial. If they have just correct the fault and carry on. It could be as simple as the member completed Level IV and it hasn't been processed at National. In addition the remarks box should be full of reasons why the person should be promoted. I've seen many CAPF2's that had nothing in the remarks. If the commander can't say anything good about the individual, why promote him?

Awards on the other hand should be well written and full of verbs rather than adjectives,. Tell them what the person did, how it was extraordinary, and the positive results of his/her actions. I've seen too many CAPF1 20's saying "John Smith has been a member for 10 years and is the greatest guy on earth, without telling me what he did to merit the award.  

[lordmonar]

Well...that's a whole other rant...than just a new policy letter.

[sarflyer]

You need to find out what the reason for denial was.  Work your way up the chain of command and find out why.

Don't assume, find out.  Then you can fix it. 

[afgeo4]

When a promotion is denied, the denying authority is required to provide a reason for the denial. If they have just correct the fault and carry on. It could be as simple as the member completed Level IV and it hasn't been processed at National. In addition the remarks box should be full of reasons why the person should be promoted. I've seen many CAPF2's that had nothing in the remarks. If the commander can't say anything good about the individual, why promote him?

Awards on the other hand should be well written and full of verbs rather than adjectives,. Tell them what the person did, how it was extraordinary, and the positive results of his/her actions. I've seen too many CAPF1 20's saying "John Smith has been a member for 10 years and is the greatest guy on earth, without telling me what he did to merit the award.  

So let's see... if the proper documentation hasn't yet shown up at NHQ website and they deny the promotion and then a few days later the documentation finally appears (say an internet or admin backlog at NHQ), you have to wait for 6 months before re-submitting?

They have to put conditions into these policies. The shouldn't just say six months and that's that. There are all kinds of cases out there.

I also see abuse of the system. I'll bet the IGs are going to see a lot more complaints since that's the only avenue of appeal.

[DNall]

Just to clarify... this is talking about special appointment to LtCol, NOT standard duty performance/TIG; and, region level approved awards. Is that correct?

If that's the case... no more than one-tenth of one percent of members should ever be even considered for special appointment promotion, and the overwhelming majority of those should be disapproved. It would be the exceptionally extreme rare case I could ever imagine approving that for - like one person every 20 years.

As far as awards, we've talked in the past about the standards for each level not being well enough defined, and the standards being applied unevenly across the org. If your award rec is disapproved and it's really a factor to get the person an award right now versus six months from now, then just downgrade it a wing approved award (the Wg/CC has already signed off on the action) and you're good to go. Otherwise, fix your recommendation & resubmit in six months. I don't see what the big deal is. If you members are really motivated by that crap then there's problems. I gotta start wondering about spotlight rangers making ribbons over the back of unrecognized hard workers.

[RiverAux]

If that's the case... no more than one-tenth of one percent of members should ever be even considered for special appointment promotion, and the overwhelming majority of those should be disapproved. It would be the exceptionally extreme rare case I could ever imagine approving that for - like one person every 20 years.

Are you saying you don't want to see special appointments (like for the legislative liasion) or are you thinking about special appointments not so explicitly approved by the regs (hey, its my buddy, lets see if we can make him a Lt. Col.)?  Either way, I agree. 

If the region isn't explaining why they've been turning down these things, they deserve to get bombarded with the same things time and time again. 

[IceNine]

GLR/CC has openly stated that promotions to Lt. Col will require undeniable substantiation for promotion whether said promotion is organic or abstract makes no difference.
 

[DNall]

By "organic or abstract" do you happen to mean by duty performance/TIG (ie the right way) and special performance (as in my buddy, or this lawyer/doctor)?

I really don't have a problem with normal duty performance promotions requiring a narrative to evidence active service & deserving of being advanced, but that is not required by regs & adding promotion requirements is explicitly forbidden.

If it's just special appointments, as the memo seems to indicate, those should almost always be disapproved anyway.

Regarding the legislative liaison issue... it is reasonable that the person in that position should be a LtCol. It'd be more appropriate if they were full Cols, based on the level of national guard officer members of the legislature are used to dealing with. It's also reasonable that the person that should be representing CAP to the state govt should have a career experience with CAP necessary to put him on that grade level anyway. I do understand that you'll sometimes get a lobbyist recruited that may be better suited in personality & positioning to do the actual work. It's not appropriate to promote that guy out of the blocks to LtCol. It's appropriate to make him the asst legislative liaison answering to a more experienced officer.

The kind of situations where I'd be willing to apply special appointments is where you get a member who has chosen never to advance past Capt (or who has stayed an NCO, etc), but has completed the PD & TIG to be a LtCol, and is now assuming a position where the grade of LtCol is more appropriate. Other then that, I'm hard pressed to see the need for the provision to even exist. Everyone else serves their time, even the most exceptional and active among us.

[IceNine]

By "organic or abstract" do you happen to mean by duty performance/TIG (ie the right way) and special performance (as in my buddy, or this lawyer/doctor)?

You got it. 

One clarification, he is not adding requirements he is using the narratives a tool to aid the promotion review board in making an informed decision.

The narratives must answer AT LEAST these 2 questions

What has the member done in CAP since the last time s/he was promoted?
What does the member plan to do in CAP in the future?

After that it goes to the membership review board and they make their recommendations.

[Cato the Younger]

I really don't have a problem with normal duty performance promotions requiring a narrative to evidence active service & deserving of being advanced, but that is not required by regs & adding promotion requirements is explicitly forbidden.

It is my understanding from PM's and emails received today that duty performance promotions are being denied outright the first time through. I was told today there are members with 20 years plus in the organization that have been denied duty performance promotions. I was even informed about RSC graduates that have been denied duty performance promotions because it is not what you have done while making yourself eligibile for promotion that matters, it is what have you done since you became eligible. If the clock on exemplary performance/ TIG  is only being started once you are eligible for promotions than there is a really big problem.

[DNall]

While not unreasonable, I think a pretty strong case can be made that such a narrative is not required by regs for duty performance promotion & is in fact an added requirement. It is the responsibility of the review board to inform themselves by either already knowing the people being recommended or doing their homework to find out. It is not the responsibility of the member or their command to justify a promotion that is already justified by regs based on their record of service/performance.

Now special appointments, those should basically not be happening almost ever, and those do, by reg, require an extensive justification narrative/package.

It is my understanding from PM's and emails received today that duty performance promotions are being denied outright the first time through. I was told today there are members with 20 years plus in the organization that have been denied duty performance promotions. I was even informed about RSC graduates that have been denied duty performance promotions because it is not what you have done while making yourself eligibile for promotion that matters, it is what have you done since you became eligible. If the clock on exemplary performance/ TIG  is only being started once you are eligible for promotions than there is a really big problem.

That is outright violation of regs and clearly an addition to the reqs. That's a very good way to be removed as region commander & possibly disciplined further. I would strongly recommend whoever is executing that policy seriously reconsider their tactics. I have no doubt they have the best interest of the org in mind, but they are making very poor choices in the execution if that's true.

[Cecil DP]

If the promotions are returned without documentation of why the promotion was denied it is an IG matter. Several years ago we had a Captain whose promotion to Major was repeatedly submitted and mysteriously lost in transit. When the unit formally asked what was going on the CAPF2 was returned without comment and denied. The Captain immediately submitted an IG complaint to Region which told the Wing Commander to not only approve it, but to send it up to Region where it was already approved for Major.

[heliodoc]

The above shows a clear case of someone not doing their JOB and if this had to be handled by the IG,
well you know how I feel being from the Real Military this definitelywould have been done in a MORE PROFESSIONAL manner.

And for those "professional CAP officers"  there's plenty of templates and real military documents that are online on how to write promo packets.  WUZZA matter, you SLS, UCC, RSC types do not know how to write professional promos or other award packets??? Time to repeat a course

For an IG and a volunteer one at that to have to handle this........ you know the deal!!!!!!

[arajca]

SLS and UCC do not cover how to write an award or promotion packet. I don't know about RSC since I haven't taken it.

Keep in mind that even the most well written and justified award/promotion packet will get shot down if the approving authority doesn't like (it, the unit, the submitter, the member, take your pick). Is this right? Of course not. But it happens.

We all have heard of the wing commander who has decided no one in the wing will get anything above a Comm Comm, or addes extra "unwritten" promotion requirements, regardless of how well deserved it is.

[heliodoc]

True  but there wer reference made to what CAPM/F/P out there to assist the "commander"

It's a pretty sad deal if these "unwriiten rules" are out there and causing consternation

It's NO wonder CAP is a laughing stock at times for this very reason and if I was looking for professionalism...... well I may have to to NASAR.

They seem to have no "RANK" and "BLING" problems like some little Napolean commanders doo.. whether they be Sqdn, Wing , or Region CC's

And those unwritten rules and GOB operations should be the things IG'd... BUT I forgot... Can't IG a perception, huh???

[ctrossen]

Promotion standards to Lt Col in Great Lakes Region have definitely tightened up, but it's not impossible to do.

Back at the end of last year (actually, in the fourth quarter of last year), I submitted three members for duty performance promotions to Lt Col. I'd heard through the grapevine that it would be "tougher" to get these promotions, but hadn't seen word one on what the standards were or what the Region Promotion Board expected to see in the promotion packet (one of those promotion requests was for our Wing Personnel Officer, and since he hadn't seen or heard anything official, that made it even more frustrating).

So we wrote up the CAPF2s, and I worked up brief writeups to enter into the Remarks section on the backs for each of them. Then filled out the promotion request online and submitted paper copies as backups.

Of the three that we submitted, only the Wing DP's promotion was approved. One was denied right out (with no reason ever given), and for the final one the region board requested additional information.

So once more back to the drawing board, or in this case MS Word. I drafted a recommendation memo for the two of them and we resubmitted. And once those memos reached the board at the same time as the CAPF2s, they were both approved.

I don't have a problem with tightening the belts on promotions at all. The frustrating part is that the region board has apparently been operating like this for more than a year, but hasn't published one single word on the process, what criteria they will be judging promotions on, or what they expect to see.

All I can tell you is this: it seems to me that what they're looking for is the ability to function at a level commensurate with the increased grade and service at the wing or higher level (which doesn't necessarily require being on the wing staff, just that the candidate has contributed significantly to a major wing activity/project--the other two Lt Col promotions were based on 1.) organizing a new unit and serving as XO/Deputy of the encampment, and 2.) serving as Planning and/or Logistics Section Chief on numerous wing-level ES missions and training activities as well as Logistics Director for our encampment).

[lordmonar]

I'll buy that.....we have lamented on this board long and hard about CAP "rank" not meaning anything....so it appreas the GLR promotions board is looking for wing level ability/participation for the Lt Col promotion.  Sound good to me.

Granted.....it would be better for the board to communicate its standards to the field...to reduce work load on both ends of the pipe line.

[Eclipse]

I'll buy that.....we have lamented on this board long and hard about CAP "rank" not meaning anything....so it appears the GLR promotions board is looking for wing level ability/participation for the Lt Col promotion.  Sound good to me.

Granted.....it would be better for the board to communicate its standards to the field...to reduce work load on both ends of the pipe line.

Agreed. If you want to raise the bar, its going to hit a few people on the way up. This is unfortunate, but unless something changes, nothing will ever change. 

At the end of the day, it is a respective commander's right and responsibility to decide if a member is fit for promotion.  The entire last step is subjective.

There are 10's of thousands of people who retired from compensated services believing they deserved at least one more kick up but never got it.

Welcome to a paramilitary organization.

This effects me directly and I fully support it.  Kudos to Col. Charles.

[afgeo4]

The problem is... they can't create extra requirements for promotion on top of what's allowed by NHQ in the regs.

By regs, they cannot tighten things. That's WHY our grade means progression through the professional development grid and time in service/grade. That's WHY it doesn't mean who's capable of leadership on what level. That's why we have people in various grades being commanders of units, encampments, etc.

Promotion to LtCol should be automatic presuming all requirements set forth by NHQ have been met. How much respect and what command authority is given that member, regardless of grade is what should be considered by boards, not promotions.

Why? Because we're volunteers. Yes, we're not professionals. Those get paid for their work. We are solely volunteers. Although expectations of "professionalism" aren't out of bounds, please keep in mind that we aren't.

[Eclipse]

Promotion to LtCol should be automatic presuming all requirements set forth by NHQ have been met.

And there you have the fallacy...

Achievement of professional development levels is automatic, grade is not.

SECTION B - DUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTIONS
11. Eligibility Requirements.
a. General Requirements. To be considered for this type promotion, the member must:
1) Be at least 21 years of age.
2) Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
3) Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
4) Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
5) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
6) Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.

Like it or not, grade in CAP is still the subjective choice of someone you report to.  What little weight it has stems from the fact that in order to achieve it you had to do more than just check the boxes, you had to convince a superior that you deserve to wear the insignia.

You are correct that, by regs, a commander cannot put in place additional >objective< criteria for promotion, however the >subjective< nature of "commander's approval" is well within the regulations and is a cornerstone of a paramilitary grade system, CAP or otherwise.  Without that you might just as well get rid of the grade and/or change eServices to auto-promote people based on TIG.

That singular requirement of having to stay in the good graces of a superior is what sticks in a lot of craws, especially for those without any prior military experience. 

Again, welcome to a paramilitary environment.  I view it as "part of the game" - having to accept things I don't always agree with or like because I wear the uniform. 

Also, to circle-back on what this thread was actually about, all Col. Charles is directing us to do is complete the paperwork properly, and if a request is denied, wait 6 months for resubmission.  So warned, it is incumbent of us as commanders to "go find out" what that means, and to review documents that we have to approve "in turn" before sending them up.

[lordmonar]

No...the problem is that the de facto national standard for "be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended" has been at a more or less low level.

While I may or may not like a heightening of that standard.....one region setting their own standard is NOT the way to do it.  Unequal promotions do not make for a more professional leadership.  You end up with a lot of pissed off Majors griping about how they are getting screwed while some dirt bags in the next region get promoted by the basket load.

[Eclipse]

No standard is being set, other than paperwork guidelines.  The rest is subjective, just like it always has been.

[Robert Hartigan]

, all Col. Charles is directing us to do is complete the paperwork properly, and if a request is denied, wait 6 months for resubmission. 

Kudos to Col. Charles.

Hello,
I hope you get a chuckle out of this. The topic is what it is, but the Region Commander is Col. Carr not Col Charles. Just to lighten things up a bit, let me tell you I did the same thing only in person. I was President of the Mess at Staff College and I had to introduced the head table. Without missing a beat I introduced Colonel Charles "Chuck" Carr as Colonel Bill Charles. A very Homer Simpson moment. "D'oh."  I have to believe my promotion will wait until Col. Carr retires for that one regulation or no regulation.

You may return to your debate after you remember to keep your a sense of humor. Have faith in our core values and things will sort themselves out for the best of the organization. :angel:

RPH

[Eclipse]

This effects me directly and I fully support it.  Kudos to Col. Charles Carr.

Lord, I'm an idiot.

[davidsinn]

This effects me directly and I fully support it.  Kudos to Col. Charles Carr.

Lord, I'm an idiot.

Don't feel too bad. My safety officer once introduced our state director Mike Moran [Mor-Ran] as Mike [Mor-Ron] if front of a large gathering at another unit.

[afgeo4]

Promotion to LtCol should be automatic presuming all requirements set forth by NHQ have been met.

And there you have the fallacy...

Achievement of professional development levels is automatic, grade is not.

SECTION B - DUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTIONS
11. Eligibility Requirements.
a. General Requirements. To be considered for this type promotion, the member must:
1) Be at least 21 years of age.
2) Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
3) Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
4) Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
5) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
6) Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.

Like it or not, grade in CAP is still the subjective choice of someone you report to.  What little weight it has stems from the fact that in order to achieve it you had to do more than just check the boxes, you had to convince a superior that you deserve to wear the insignia.

You are correct that, by regs, a commander cannot put in place additional >objective< criteria for promotion, however the >subjective< nature of "commander's approval" is well within the regulations and is a cornerstone of a paramilitary grade system, CAP or otherwise.  Without that you might just as well get rid of the grade and/or change eServices to auto-promote people based on TIG.

That singular requirement of having to stay in the good graces of a superior is what sticks in a lot of craws, especially for those without any prior military experience. 

Again, welcome to a paramilitary environment.  I view it as "part of the game" - having to accept things I don't always agree with or like because I wear the uniform. 

Also, to circle-back on what this thread was actually about, all Col. Charles is directing us to do is complete the paperwork properly, and if a request is denied, wait 6 months for resubmission.  So warned, it is incumbent of us as commanders to "go find out" what that means, and to review documents that we have to approve "in turn" before sending them up.

Not a complete fallacy. I did state that the requirements are clearly stated in the NHQ regs, which you stated. Yes, there is some subjectivity on the issue of what is fitting a Major or LtCol... (actually no one knows for sure what is and THAT is the problem).

Can someone please fill us in on how field grade promotions are decided on in the military? I believe it is mostly the person's record, in black on white that counts.

I don't think that's so in CAP. From what I've seen, friends promote friends.

[RiverAux]

5) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

Yes, thats probably been there forever, but where have we defined what this means?  Where have we said what sort of performance merits promotion to various grades?  Where are we told what the is the difference between satisfactory performance in a particular rank vs exemplary performance that merits a promotion? 

As we have discussed many times on this board we do not in any way define what level of performance is expected out of any of the officer ranks in CAP.  Lacking that, just how are commanders supposed to fairly follow that guideline? 

Granted, you're not ever going to remove all the subjectivity out of this basic criteria, but if CAP expects its commanders to really make sound judgements on that issue, they need to provide some more guidance on how to implement it. 

[Cecil DP]

Can someone please fill us in on how field grade promotions are decided on in the military? I believe it is mostly the person's record, in black on white that counts.

All promotions in the military Captain and above and senior NCO's are through centralized promotion boards. The board is given the records of all soldiers meeting the minimum requirements TIG/TIS and review them against each other. If there is a need for 100 officers in a particular grade they will select at least 90 from the primary zone.  5% can be promoted from below the zone. Anyone who is not selected gets one more chance. After being passed over for a second time, they are told that their career will be over on a certain date. 

[lordmonar]

Let me tell you how the SNCO boards work.

The board's definition of promotion readiness is completely subjective.  The board members talk among themselves about what they feel are important aspects and then the do test runs on old sanitized records to see how they are rating individuals in relation to the other board members.

Once the board goes active....each member rates the individual with out discussion with other board members.   If there is no gross point discrepancy (any score more than .5 off any other board members score)....then the scores are added together and that becomes the board score.

If there is a big discrepancy between members...they hold that record for later.  They as a group look at the record and discuss the merits of the individual and then re-score the record.

But the basic subjective criteria is not set in stone.  No one know what the board members are looking for in a record.  Is education good?  I community service?  Deployments?  Staff Jobs?  Jobs at Group/Wing/NAF/MAJCOM carry more or less weight?

We usually have some consistency because of our corporate knowledge....anyone with a major agenda or some off the wall ideas of "what a good promotee" should be are usually suppress or controlled by the other board members.

Now what is happening in GLR is not necessarily a bad thing.......if it were applied across all the regions.  That is my only gripe with this situation.

[RiverAux]

I suppose what I'm saying is that if CAP really, really wants commanders to be more subjective in approving or disproving promotions for those that have met all the objective criteria, they're going to need to stress a bit more in the regulations exactly what sort of performance they expect out of people at different ranks. 

Since what CAP members actually do has nothing to do with their rank you can have a 2nd Lt. and Maj. doing the exact same jobs both within the squadron administration and perhaps both could have the same ES qualifications, pilot ratings, etc.  What more would be expected of the Maj. to get promoted to Lt. Col. than it would take the 2nd Lt. to get promoted to 1st Lt.? 

In the actual military, even though the actual jobs of 100 2nd Lts. might be radically different, they are usually going to involve roughly the same degree of complexity, but that isn't our case where that 2nd Lt. could be doing absolutely nothing but going to meetings, he could be serving in a minor squadron position, deputy squadron commander, squadron commander, or serving on group or wing staff overseeing programs in multiple units.  Which of those 2nd Lts deserve the promotion and which don't assuming that all other requirements have been met?

At best you could be on safe ground in not promoting the guy who has done nothing other than fill the other checkboxes. 

[IceNine]

While I cannot speak for what Col Carr is doing with his authority to approve/disapprove promotions I can tell you that I am following a similar track with mine.

In my opinion it is the responsibility of closer proximity commanders (squadron, group) to decide if a member truly warrants promotion.  I have a group comprised almost completely of Lt's, and Capt's.  I have about 5 majors and 2 Lt. Col's. 

I can pretty much go though my list and tell you the members that will (should the board recommend it) receive my signature without question, I can also tell you the members that will be denied, or asked further questions of.  It all has to do with performance, attitude, and knowledge.

As you get to the wing and region level the proximal daily dealings become slim to none.  Which is reason in itself to require a justification paragraph->novel.

The only direct issue that I have with this whole deal is not providing details as to why a promotion was denied.  Or not doing so with enough detail

[RiverAux]

If we are going to get serious about that clause in the duty performance promotion requriements, then we need to be just as, if not much more, serious about similar language in the requirements for special and professional appointments and those related to mission skills. 

So, if a lawyer joins, not only is he going to have to be serving as a legal officer somewhere, he will actually need to have done some legal work for the unit before getting the promotion to Captain.  If the squadron hasn't had any legal issues come up, which means he actually hasn't DONE anything, then he doesn't get the promotion even if he has had the position for 4 years and will have to advance just like every one else. 

Pilot with CFI?  No promotion to Captain until you get a CAP Pilot rating and are either doing regular orientation flights or are performing regularly as a Transport or Mission Pilot. 

Mechanics?  You need to be the squadron maintenance officer and have kept the plane flying for a while.

So, I'm not philosophically opposed to this idea, but we need to apply it across the board.

However, before getting all stingy with promotions, we all need to remember that despite the crack that everyone in CAP is a Colonel, we actually do have a pyramid-shaped rank structure with more Lts than Captains, more Captains than Majors, and more Majors than Lt. Colonels.  So, how much would anything really change?  Does it make much difference if only 5% of members are Lt. Colonels vs 10%? 

If you think the distribution of ranks within CAP is a problem, you're better off strengthening the objective requirements rather than counting on commanders to make subjective decisions that leave them open to charges (and to actually implementing) a good old boy system where if they've got a grudge, they can make it real hard for you to get a promotion and not need to have to justify their decision. 

[IceNine]

Being able to deny/approve promotions as you see fit is a benefit of being a commander.  If you remove subjectivity you remove one of the tools that commander's use to motivate members.  I have personally effectively used holding a promotion to produce required results.

One observation I have noticed (given a relatively small sample group).  Commanders that move through the ranks organically (duty performance from the start) are more apt to be tough on special appointments, mission skills promotions and the like.

Note: I'm not saying that is a hard and fast rule, but it represents a noticeable trend

[Eclipse]

If we are going to get serious about that clause in the duty performance promotion requirements, then we need to be just as, if not much more, serious about similar language in the requirements for special and professional appointments and those related to mission skills. 

Who says we're not?

What you suggested is specifically being done in my wing, based on the direction of the Region CC.

[RiverAux]

Although I've heard a few people here mention doing it, it hasn't been discussed or emphasized in my wing and I'm not aware of anything coming down from the national level or being discussed at that level (in the formal meetings). 

[Eclipse]

Without (honestly) looking to reopen that can of worms, your wing had for a while been on its own separate track in a lot of respects, most of them significantly more critical than a member's grade.

My bad, wrong wing...

[afgeo4]

Being able to deny/approve promotions as you see fit is a benefit of being a commander.  If you remove subjectivity you remove one of the tools that commander's use to motivate members.  I have personally effectively used holding a promotion to produce required results.

One observation I have noticed (given a relatively small sample group).  Commanders that move through the ranks organically (duty performance from the start) are more apt to be tough on special appointments, mission skills promotions and the like.

Note: I'm not saying that is a hard and fast rule, but it represents a noticeable trend

Denial of promotions isn't a "motivation tool". It is a reality check or a punishment for not having done sufficiently well.

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd. NO ONE knows how the person will perform in their new position (in CAP, even that's irrelevant since promotions aren't tied to positions). The commander takes a chance with belief that the member will continue to meet all standards to their grade as they have in past.

Promoting people as a reward isn't good enough in my opinion. We must promote those who perform to standard and have met the requirements. Going above and beyond has its own rewards in forms of awards, medals, etc. Promotions aren't awards.

[SarDragon]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

[lordmonar]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

Ditto on that!  Hence the minim TIG/TIS and skill requirements for each rank.

[afgeo4]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

A presumption, yes. Proof, no.

A commander always takes a risk on promoting someone.

The requirement of proof of someone having already acted upon their grade before they reach their grade for them to be promoted is ludicrous to me.

A Major should act like a Major. A General like a General. The presumption is that if a Major is good at his job and is acting like he/she is able to take on additional responsibilities then he/she should be good at the LtCol job. A Major is never required to show and present proof of him/her acting and performing to the standard of a LtCol because in the military, grade is attached to duty position. A squadron commander can't command a group (unless there's an emergency) and cannot prove his/her experience as a LtCol as such. He/she can only demonstrate that they may be able to command a group well based on their performance as a squadron commander.

Simply put, we cannot expect someone to act like a unit commander before considering them for the job of a unit commander. We have to judge that person's abilities on their fulfillment of their other jobs and hope and expect they'll do just as fine of a job in their new position.

Anyway... what is a LtCol supposed to act like if there's no duty position attached to that? How different is it from a Major or Captain who may perform the same exact job on the same exact level? The whole thing's ridiculous.

Trying to promote people subjectively in CAP can't work. Subjectivity has to come in play when choosing staff and leadership positions, not grades. Our grades are markers of progression through the senior member development program. They are signs of longevity and training.

The position a member holds is what demonstrated character and leadership ability and/or competency in a core field, not their grade insignia.

[Bluelakes 13]

... They are signs of longevity and training.

And not even that!  There are many shortcuts to Capt, Major, HECK, Lt Col even!

The position a member holds is what demonstrated character and leadership ability and/or competency in a core field, not their grade insignia.

Amen, that is why I would be a big supporter of revamping the entire grade system, or getting rid of it altogether.  But in the meantime, we live in the system as it is now...

[Steve Kuddes]

Many times, the reason for disapproval is the way an Award or Promotion is written.  From January to March of this year, I was the Team Leader of the National Awards and Promotion Team.  During that time we saw awards and promotions that were not written well.  Sometimes we asked for more information or suggested they be re-written.  That usually worked well.
If you would like some guidance on how to write more effective requests, contact Lt Colonel Rick Moseley who is now the Team Leader of the National Awards and Promotion Team.  He has an excellent guide, which he presented at the recent National Boards, that is a great help in writing good requests.  Our NCR Wing commanders have used it since May and use it.  Made a great improvement on what we are now seeing in requests.  And really, many disapproved requests are just due to a lack of effectively written requests.

[MajorChuck]

Cato;

Email How to submit  a promotion request to GLR is on way. any Questions email or PM Me.

Chuck Cook, Maj CAP.
MIWG

[Cato the Younger]

I was told the region commander has by all intent and purpose delegated the promotion authority to the GLR/PAC. He is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the decisions made by the GLR/PAC. The memo below proves that the GLR/PAC is very well insulated from review or rebuke and can hide behind the region commander. Transparent administration of any program would include supporting data and membership wide dissemination of regulatory information.  The GLR/DP addresses his memo only to the CC's and DP's at the wing level. Since this effects everyones professional development and eventual progress in CAP, it really should be addressed to every member in GLR so, I post it here.

MEMORANDUM FOR WING/CC & WING/DP – GLR/CAP
FROM:   GLR/DP
SUBJECT:   Clarifications Regarding Promotion Procedures

1.   The following is intended to assist you when submitting promotions to Great Lakes Region based on Duty performance and Special Appointments. 
     a.   ALL PROMOTIONS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO:
          i.   Reward for knowledge and performance of assigned duties since the last promotion;
          ii.   The member considered for promotion is ready for greater responsibilities.
     b.   MINIMUM AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:
          i.   Minimum requirements are those requirements the member must meet before qualifying for initial appointment to officer grade or for promotion.  Once the minimum requirements are met, the member may be promoted.  However, promotions should never be viewed as automatic;
          ii.   Former or current military officer promotions should likewise never be viewed as automatic;
          iii.   Eligibility requirements differ in that the individual for promotion "must be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."  This requirement is extremely important when contemplating submitting a promotion request.  Utilizing section IX (Remarks) of the CAPF 2 provides opportunity to explain why the individual should be promoted.  This section should be completed with great care in explaining the member's past and current activities.  Be complete, but also be succinct.
          iv.   WHEN SUBMITTING A PROMOTION REQUEST TO REGION FOR APPROVAL PLEASE KEEP IN MIND:
               (1)   Requests for promotions to Lieutenant Colonel and Special Appointment requests are reviewed by the Region Promotions and Awards Committee.  It is this committee which will recommend approval or disapproval to the Region Commander.
               (2)   When providing a write-up on the individual, in keeping with items 1.a., 1.b. and 1.c. above, explain what the member has accomplished and  how he or she performs his or her assigned duties; i.e., do they attend encampments, SAR/DR training, etc.
               (3)   Do not quote the regulation, i.e., IAW CAPR-35-5, the individual .....
               (4)   Regularly attending meetings, while important, does not equate to an automatic promotion;
               (5)   The promise of promotions should be avoided as a tool for keeping individuals from leaving CAP;
               (6)   Special appointments simply for promotional purposes must be avoided.
     c.   REQUEST FOR DUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTION LIEUTENANT COLONEL:
          i.   REQUESTING COMMANDER:  The Requesting Commander will enter the promotion request into the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and send a completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documents to the Wing Commander.   NOTE:  Follow wing procedures in the event you have groups in the chain of command;
          ii.   WING COMMANDER:   If the Wing Commander approves the promotion, he or she will do so via the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and forward a completed CAPF 2, with any supporting documentation, by email, fax, or U.S. Mail to GLR/DP.  The most recommended way is to fill in an electronic CAPF 2 and email to GLR/DP.  If the Wing Commander disapproves the request, a proper annotation is made through the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and nothing is sent to Region Headquarters;
          iii.   GLR/DP:    Immediately upon receipt of the completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation by email, fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP emails the request and any supporting documents to the GLR/CS, Chairman, Region Promotion & Awards Committee, and other committee members.  The GLR/DP notifies the Wing Commander that the request was received.
          iv.   CHAIRMAN REGION PROMOTION & AWARDS COMMITTEE:   Schedules a monthly meeting of the GLR/PAC to review promotion requests.  The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval or disapproval of the requested promotions along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.
          v.   REGION COMMANDER:  Within seven (7) days of receiving the report of the GLR/PAC the GLR/CC will approve or disapprove the requests for promotion via the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module.  If disapproved the GLR/CC notify the Wing Commander.
     d.   REQUESTS FOR NONDUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTIONS:
          i.   WING COMMANDER:   The Wing Commander will forward a completed CAPF 2 along with any supporting documentation, either email, fax, or U.S. Mail to GLR/DP.   The most preferred method of submission is to complete an electronic CAPF 2 and email it to the GLR/DP;
          ii.   GLR/DP:    Immediately upon receipt of the completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation by email, fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP emails the request and any supporting documents to the GLR/CS, Chairman, Region Promotion & Awards Committee, and other committee members. If received by fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP forwards the request to the Chairman of the GLR/PAC and other committee members.  The GLR/DP notifies the Wing Commander that the request was received. 
          iii.   CHAIRMAN REGION GLR/PAC:   Schedules a monthly meeting of the GLR/PAC to review promotion requests.  The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval or disapproval of the requested promotion along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.
          iv.   REGION COMMANDER:  REGION COMMANDER:   Within seven (7) days of receiving the report of the GLR/PAC will approve or disapprove the request and notify the Wing Commander and forwards the approved CAPF 2 to NHQ/DP.
     e.   GLR/PAC PROCESSING PROCEDURES: 
               (1)   IAW current procedures, all requests for promotion must be received by the GLR/DP no later than the 18th of the month and will be entered into the GLR/PAC Promotions & Awards Database;
               (2)    The GLR/PAC will meet once per month.  The meetings will take place as close to the end of the month as possible, giving considerations to the schedules of the GLR/PAC members. 
               (3)   The agenda for the GLR/PAC meetings will only contain those matters received on or prior to the 18th of the month in which the meeting takes place;
               (4)   The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval of disapproval of the requested promotion along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.

FRED R. ROSENBERG, LTC, CAP
Director of Administration and Personnel, GLR, CAP

[lordmonar]

So the Regional CC did send it out....it is then the responsibilty of the Wing/Group/Squadron CCs to pass it on their promotion boards and general membership.

Not saying I agree with how GLR is doing its promotions...but you can't fault them for working with out passing the necessary information.

[NavLT]

The feedback loop is not mandated or checked on frequently.  Our system often misses that.  I had a member put in for AOBD that ended up dissaproved.  The unit commander did not know, the Group commander did not know and the member did not know.  Soooo someone at wing with the rights clicked denied and the need to communicate why is not built into the system. 

This also goes back to the discussion point about commanders and the decision to promote.  A Unit and Group Commander approved this and a wing member with probably no knowledge of the member said no.  Is the unwritten I have not seen you at a mission on this side of the state the reason? So what is the point of the qualifications required by our regs if we constantly add these unwritten rules?

Senior Promotions are the same.  National came up with a form for Promotions (CAPF2) with a block for a commander to describe why.  but I get told time and again that they want mountains of supplemental material to support the promotion (CAP Resume, Letters of recommendation, etc). Why? If the form is not adequate tell these commanders to work with national to change the submission requirements not do the "unwritten rule".

The standard with Unwritten rule is that, it by definition means that higher command is either unaware of the rule or would not endorse it.  By definition it means higher command does not approve and because it is unwritten it cannot be fairly applied because no one knows what it is.

V/R
LT J.

[Eclipse]

The feedback loop is not mandated or checked on frequently.  Our system often misses that.  I had a member put in for AOBD that ended up dissaproved.  The unit commander did not know, the Group commander did not know and the member did not know.  Soooo someone at wing with the rights clicked denied and the need to communicate why is not built into the system. 

This also goes back to the discussion point about commanders and the decision to promote.  A Unit and Group Commander approved this and a wing member with probably no knowledge of the member said no.  Is the unwritten I have not seen you at a mission on this side of the state the reason? So what is the point of the qualifications required by our regs if we constantly add these unwritten rules?

Let's not start comparing apples and gumdrops, this has nothing to do with ES quals, which are handled on a whole different level of "subjective" and actually do have real-world implications.

There is no response required if a Wing staffer disapproves a member for an ES qualification, and if your assertion is correct, that the person who denied it "didn't know the member", that's actually more justification for the denial. 

AOBD is a high enough visibility position and requires enough mission participation that by the time someone is ready to be rated, they are generally visible to higher HQ.

[NavLT]

I would argue that if you have a requirement for a position either senior promotion or ES qual that says have 2 years, 5 sticks and 1 dollar to submit a request for someone who has those things and a commanders recommendation and have it shot down with no feedback is bad, and in some places opens a door for IG/Lawsuits.

I handle about 15% of the wing ES missions out of my squadron and am qualified through BD and don't see most of the wing staff ever if they want to take my card for not hanging out with them they won't have the asset and we are very short of them now.  I have been on wing staff and group staff and have to point to the fact that if you train people to do the job right it is not a popularity/Political thing.  In ICS 300/400 we teach leave your identity at the door and do the assigned job.  CAP could take a lesson home with that.  I think that the political/popularity stuff is primarily a position issue not a grade/qual issue. 

I know the argument is going to be made that they are in the public eye as a manager at an ES event or they are the senior ranking officer at the airshow.  I think that is the point of a supervisor on the SQTR signing off that they can do the job (which includes perception management) or the recommendation from the commander that they can do the job.  If there is a problem there look at the supervisor or the commander who cannot do their job not the member who gets penalized.

V/R
LT J.

[heliodoc]

Good on NavLT

If the current SQTR's only require 2 signoffs after meeting all the "Demo" requirements, then CAP leadership should have no other reason than to go by current SQTR standards

If the Wing feels there needs to be change , like say, one needs 15 actual trainee sorties to be AOBD, then that has to be either ID'd by National or approved Wing Supplements and those then ought to be adherede to.

Granted AOBD is high profile.  But how many AOBD's per Wing??  What happens if Joe AOBD Sr is out of town??  Better have a ready staff and not come up short, have trained personnel, have the personnel with a penchant for the position.... none of these unwritten BS rules.   If they are not on paper.. they do not exist and to go along with "rules as a Wing goes along" is BS , too

Either stick with existing rules and maybe tighten some thingd up a little and make sure EVERYONE knows the rules

When people say  We do not have to give a reason"  BS Even a paid organization gives you a reason if you ask even if it is lame


Another leadership failure.... We do not have to give you a reason.... IG IG IG

[Eclipse]

Completion of a qualification (and upgrade of 101 card) requires 2 sheep, an acre of land and wing approval, the same subjective wing approval as field grade promotions.  People seem to think the check boxes are all that's needed.

While not technically a "wing-level" qualification, in most states operating as an AOBD is going to be effectively a wing-level situation and should have additional visibility and vetting, same with GBD or anything higher.

Did anyone actually ask why it was denied?  Maybe picked up a phone?

It could have been a mistake, too.

[heliodoc]

It could have been  a mistake

But what is the SQTR system but a bunch of boxes to be checked off...

If the CAP is not willing to attach additional type documentation such as the up and coming NWCG / DHS type taskbooks to "certify" the task/job one is qualified to do, then what good is it??

I/ we could argue this all day long.  But in the end, unless there is nothing other than the SQTR and MAYBE some Wing type documentation such as Supplements to training and other requirements, then the current system is all we have.

Define the roles and DEFINE those in a position who do not want to approve anything based on" I do not know you" as not able to do their volunteer job very well.


If CAP is going to last with "Missions for America" then it had better come to grip with MORE professionalism, currency of Specialty Tracks (not some 1985 series stuff mentioning the old CAPM55 series manuals such as the 50-15)  and people who are willing to adhere to the upcoming training requirements  (spell NIMS, ICS, and Emergency Management using All Risk All Hazard methodologies) and all its related documentation based on taskbooks, SQTR's, etc.

If the SQTR"s can not align with current day ICS slotting or training reqs established.... Then we are an island of our own.

Even the AF is aligning there EM requirements fairly parallel to ICS roles, we and are SQTR's should be able to do the same and also the folks who "certify" SQTR's may even have to have Federal certification in the future.. How much more time does a Volunterr have when this rolls around,

Then the Wings will have to abide by certain training criteria if they would like additional Federal fuding..

It will be based on training paperwork and not because Joe Wing CC has a buddy who could fill a postion

[NavLT]

While not technically a "wing-level" qualification, in most states operating as an AOBD is going to be effectively a wing-level situation and should have additional visibility and vetting, same with GBD or anything higher.

Did anyone actually ask why it was denied?  Maybe picked up a phone?

In my wing it is not even close to a "wing-level" qualification and part of the probelm is that if you cannot do AOBD, GOBD, Plans, OPs unless it is a "Wing-level" situation then if you only get 2 a year you won't get people trained and qualified.

From the user end asking why it was denied involves the same multiple steps up the chain to beg for an answer.  In my world when somebody so much as asks for a day off from work if I check no there is a box to say why?  Where is ours.  If my Wing DO or DOS is a busy guy does he have the time to deal with every member who wants to know why calling him?  And if the answer is the Group should ask why thier qual was denied, in this case they were not looking daily and never even noticed (not that there was an auto notify or anything....).

V/R
Lt J.