What to do: NCO or Officer, need some insight

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....has taken a bureaucracy snafu and turned it into a full blown conspiracy. 

Those plans sitting on the desk....are the recruit plan.  The matrix that gives credit for CAP time to "advanced" appointment of former NCOs.

The duty descriptions are stuck in the Reg Moratorium.

We are currently gathering baselines and standards to start building the Professional Development Course ware.

So....that's the "plan".  That's the "program".


As for the rest of your screed......The Officer/NCO is not a caste system.   A caste system implies that you are born into it and cannot change.  Most definitely not a caste system.

So....don't use that term sir.  It is wrong.

The Officer/NCO system is a division of labor.   Airman are the doers, NCOs are the front line supervisors, Officers are managers.  We have a in the real military "gate keeper" requirements to move from one corps to another....but it is not a caste.

This help illustrates your lack of understand of most things military.  While I understand you come by that naturally.

I still don't understand the angst?

What is the worst that can happen?  What is this grave danger that we are going to run into?

[kwe1009]

Can we at least get a hint at what the division of labor will be between NCOs and Officers?  As you stated NCOs are the front line supervisors but if there is no rank under them then who exactly are they supervising?  What tasks are going to be taken away from Officers?

For me the angst is simply the fact that I see this as more of a waste of time and resources than a benefit to CAP.  I keep hearing that it is a recruiting tool but I can't foresee the tons of NCOs beating down our door to join now that CAP has NCO promotions, especially when they are pretty limited in the SNCO grades.

I really would like to see this succeed but at it is currently presented to the membership, it just seems half-baked and has been stated often here, a solution in search of a problem.

[Storm Chaser]

The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.

I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.

[Eclipse]

This help illustrates your lack of understand of most things military.  While I understand you come by that naturally.

And this helps illustrate the real timbre of the NCO corps, which I understand you come by naturally.

And neither is relevent in this discussion, yet you and Ned keep bring it up, because deflection is easier then just answering the simple
questions everyone is asking.

Not answering is answering.

However this...

The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.

...is actually the real answer, typical of CAP - run into a burning room and then realize you don't have a hose - and all we really need to know.

[lordmonar]

The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.

I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.

That was me

And yes as I have stated we have not defined all the roles yet.   

It's no secret that we haven't.

You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.   

And you poo poo them.  But hey thanks for soo porting the program. 

You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.

Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers.      Because of baby steps. 

But again thanks for supporting the program. 

[abdsp51]

The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.

I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.

That was me

And yes as I have stated we have not defined all the roles yet.   

It's no secret that we haven't.

You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.   

And you poo poo them.  But hey thanks for soo porting the program. 

You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.

Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers.      Because of baby steps. 

But again thanks for supporting the program.

Can't embrace and support something that really isn't there outside of how to appoint and promote.  Maybe just maybe if there was more substance to this as I have stated before, there may be more willingness to support this. 

Honestly until there is something more provided and spelled out I wouldn't expect any type of enthusiastic support.

[lordmonar]

I'm not looking for enthusiastic support.   It's the negative this will kill CAP, cause global warming and bring back the Soviet Union angst that I don't understand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[abdsp51]

I'm not looking for enthusiastic support.   It's the negative this will kill CAP, cause global warming and bring back the Soviet Union angst that I don't understand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a stretch.  But honestly the angst is there because the questions presented have not been answered outside of smoke screen answers.

This program won't survive if the support is there and the lack of information will it's own downfall.  This is change but change that has been poorly implemented.  Can you honestly expect us to support this with the lack of information outside of hey we can appoint and they can promote and this will make CAP better? 

This is akin to the wonderful new EPR system we have in the AF and changes for E7,  it's suppose to make things better but it's done nothing but generate headaches. 

I think if the committee provided the information that is being requested the angst you see will disappear. 

[lordmonar]

I agree this is poor change management.   

Always have. 


But again.   Even if I exaggerate some of the angst (but eclipse sees grave issues in the future) even with the lack of info there is nothing about the program that can hurt CAP.  And if there is something that I can't see we can always just kill turn it off at my time.   




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wuzafuzz]

Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!!

No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO."  Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways.  There are very few roles that require CAP grade.

[FW]

^Pretty much, true.  There is no obligation to promote; staying a SMWOG is acceptable.  I wonder how many Wilson awardees are still "E1s"...

So, it's now been about 2 years since this party started.  Other than new grade insignia, we see nothing about the program which is truly tangible.  Will we expect to see the program at the annual conference?  Is there going to be an end to this discussion?  Pat says it quite well; "poor change management". This is not going to cut it.  It is an excuse for poor performance by a leadership which seems to be overwhelmed with day to day baloney.  We got ABUs sooner than this.... 

[Storm Chaser]

Duplicate post

[Storm Chaser]

You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.

I'm not the one proposing or advocating for the NCO program. You are. It's not my job to come up with the duties and responsibilities of a position I didn't create, but one which came from your Committee. I'm doing my job. Do I need to do yours too?

And you poo poo them.  But hey thanks for soo porting the program.

I used to support the program... when I thought there was a program to support. Your posts and the lack of guidance from above have proven otherwise.

You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.

I asked a serious and legitimate question. I did so privately (through PM), so I could get an honest answer without generating additional debate. I wanted/needed guidance from a subject matter expert, and all I got was rudeness and borderline disrespect on your reply. Is that how a senior NCO is supposed to address a field grade officer?

You still haven't answer some basic questions. Maybe you should focus on doing that.

Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers.      Because of baby steps. 

That's not taking baby steps. That's putting the cart before the horses. Repeating yourself continuously doesn't make it so. You want to shut up Eclipse and the rest of us, stop trying to sell the program and address the concerns.

[THRAWN]

Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!!

No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO."  Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways.  There are very few roles that require CAP grade.

This is something I have been saying for a couple.of decades. Put rank on those that are in positions of authority. Everybody else is "member"...

[Holding Pattern]

Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!!

No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO."  Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways.  There are very few roles that require CAP grade.

This is something I have been saying for a couple.of decades. Put rank on those that are in positions of authority. Everybody else is "member"...

There are orgs that exist with that structure if you really want it.

[THRAWN]

Indeed there are. They call them best practices for a reason. Thay way there are no issues about things like this thay have a direct impact on less than one percent of the membership. Wasnt there a bathroom issue like this recently? Lets focus on more important issues like complaining about ABUs that we collectively complained about not getting....

[Holding Pattern]

The "issues" as you call them seem to mostly exist within the realms of captalk.

[Flying Pig]

You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.

I'm not the one proposing or advocating for the NCO program. You are. It's not my job to come up with the duties and responsibilities of a position I didn't create, but one which came from your Committee. I'm doing my job. Do I need to do yours too?

And you poo poo them.  But hey thanks for soo porting the program.

I used to support the program... when I thought there was a program to support. Your posts and the lack of guidance from above have proven otherwise.

You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.

I asked a serious and legitimate question. I did so privately (through PM), so I could get an honest answer without generating additional debate. I wanted/needed guidance from a subject matter expert, and all I got was rudeness and borderline disrespect on your reply. Is that how a senior NCO is supposed to address a field grade officer?

You still haven't answer some basic questions. Maybe you should focus on doing that.

Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers.      Because of baby steps. 

That's not taking baby steps. That's putting the cart before the horses. Repeating yourself continuously doesn't make it so. You want to shut up Eclipse and the rest of us, stop trying to sell the program and address the concerns.

:clap: :clap: :clap:  HAAAA!! Well you arent a "real" field grade officer..... but the NCOs will be real 

[Mitchell 1969]

One other thing that will need to be considered is the use of billeting and base facilities when activities are held on a military base.  Generally, Officers and NCO's have separate billeting, messing, and club facilities which may or may not be located geographically near each other.  This may cause some issues with the transportation and supervision of cadets and cadre after working hours.  It may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"

Ever go to a place and hear a song that reminds you of being in a different place many years earlier? This is one of those.

Add it to this quote from....sorry, apologies to the author, I clipped it and forgot where I got it...Eclipse, maybe?

<<Stipulated - CAP has always had NCOs in ranks.
>>

That "always had NCOs" is a bit revisionist. CAP had them at the beginning. CAP has them now. At both ends, there were differences and it is evolving yet again. But, the actual history does not support the "always had."

Originally, CAP NCOs came from two sources - people with military experience and people without military experience. Currently, there is only one source - people with not only military experience, but NCO experience. That seems to be morphing into a three source system - no military experience, prior military experience (perhaps not at NCO level) and CAP officers looking for something different.

What keeps getting left out of the story is the fact that, for a significant period of its history, CAP had NO NCOs, thereby negating any claim to "always had NCOs." (I'm not sure of the dates or length of time - somebody here will undoubtedly know, but it was in the 1970's-1980's era).

We this went from some to none, then back to some, and are now looking at some +.

This is far from a matter of trivia and minutiae. There is actually a lost lesson in all this. It's in these questions:

"Why did we get rid of them?" and "Why did we bring them back?"

We got rid of them mostly for two reasons. First was exactly as stated in the quote from Al Sayre. The close working relationships of CAP volunteers, for whom rank was a small factor, did not mesh with the traditions, protocols and norms of the armed forces, for whom rank was a BIG factor. The military reactions to CAP LtCols dropping by the NCO club and dampening things or CAP TSgt trying to go into the O club with the captains brought about accusations of boorishness on the part of CAP. Then came the 21 year old CAP 2nd Lt bragging about his VOQ quarters to the CAP SSg who was sharing space in a barracks with 6 other guys. They both did the same job, paid the same dues, so...?

The second reason why it came about is related to my last example. Nobody could really find anybody in the average CAP local unit who was doing much on a different level than anybody else - and at higher levels, with our lack of "up or out," almost anybody could end up, willingly and cheerfully, working for anybody else. While it was weird to see a LtCol working for a 1st Lt, it was even weirder to see a LtCol working for a SSg.

So...we dumped NCOs. Some people transitioned in to officer grades. A few NCOs became SMWOG. And a few simply quit - they would not become things they were not, be that officer or SM.

After literally years (10 or better? Anybody know?) of EFFECTIVE operation where lack of NCOs was not missed, former military NCOs lobbied for the ability to retain their earned grade. They even stipulated that duties would not change. It was sold, and bought, as an honorific recognition, not as a program, and was limited - ex-military NCO only, same grade, no promotions unless promoted in the military.

Jump ahead to recently. Personally, I used to think that the new program was a solution in search of a problem, based on everything I wrote above. I saw it being driven by a National Commander who himself had a NCO mindset but who had not thought it all the way through. I also thought that there were a lot of horses hooked up to the wrong end of their carts. (But do keep reading, please).

In my opinion, it would have made more sense to really analyze the need for this, as opposed to what seemed like a vague reliance on "NCOs, gotta have 'em, backbone of the Air Force, doncha know, and, leadership, because professionalism." Then, if analysis bore out the need, design a program, phase it in - not phase it in, then design it. (I keep thinking of something like "Just jump out of the plane. O'Malley will meet you at the DZ and issue you your parachute").

But, "personally" and "in my opinion" don't create policy at my level. So, here we are. I started wondering why they even kept at it once the proponent was replaced. Because they'd already sold it to SECAF? Because a small and faceless cartel of CAP NCOs had some incriminating "holiday snaps" and were determined to see it through? I truly doubt that, or most other theories.

Instead, here's what I really think is happening, whether by design or by evolution. This is simply part of a pathway to putting the USAF Auxiliary on a better footing as an Air Force asset rather than as an Air Force appendage. It's a move to help CAP get away from the GOB flying club stereotype - while still being able to welcome the GOB flying club people.

In other words - I think that by creating an NCO corps of professional NCOs, regardless of recruiting source, CAP will be creating paths to creating a more professional officer corps. Each follows the other, in a circular way. This isn't directed at demoting existing officers, as much as it is at putting future CAP members where their talents and abilities are the best fit.

I think that it all adds up to a future time when rank in CAP will actually be meaningful. Not just to USAF, not just to CAP, but to us, individually. It won't be painful, but it will be hard.

In my crystal ball, I see a toughening of requirements for appointment as a CAP officer. Some college requirement, perhaps starting with 60 units/AA, working up to bachelors down the road for field grade. I see attendance at an actual officer school, maybe akin to what USAF JAGS and captains attend, or at least what our counterparts in Canada and UK attend. I think I even see an end to 24 year old majors - Spaatz getting somebody maybe 6 months off TIG or a limited waiver of some requirements for a PD rating. And, I see people wearing stripes, proud to wear them, because they took a path leading to them, worked for them and they are genuinely valued for their efforts in their specialities by the officers who took a different path to different responsibilities.

So - I will always adamantly insist that history not be revisionist and include references to a time when we had no NCOs. But I will fully support any efforts to professionalize and validate the rank structure in the volunteer component of the USAF Total Force.

[Jester]

^bam.