Rank based on ES training

[RiverAux]

Although I'm not the first to propose this, I don't believe its had its own thread.  How about basing adult CAP rank on your ES training?  Although I don't think its critical we argue about the specifics of which position goes with which rank, what I am suggesting would go something like this:

Incident Commanders: Lt. Cols
Section Chiefs/Branch Directors: Majors
Command Staff/GTLs/MPs/MOs: Captains
GTMS/UDFS/Scanners/MROs,MSAs, etc: 1st Lt.
2d Lt = new guys who have completed enhanced CAP entry-level training. 

Why should we do it this way?
1.  CAP was founded to perform Emergency Services missions and ES accounts for the largest majority of CAP spending at the national level.   If you believe in following the money it is clear that the AF believes our ES capability is far more important than the cadet program or aerospace education. 

2.  When CAP interacts with other agencies it is almost always in regards to an ES mission.  Since that is where most people come into contact with CAP, that is where the greatest confusion can arise about the relationship between our rank structure and our responsibility (i.e., why is that Captain the Incident Commander and telling all the Majors and Lt Cols what to do?). 

3.  Like them or not, our ES training is by far more rigorous than our senior member training program.  You actually have to demonstrate competence on a regular basis and not just attend courses and sit in a squadron job with no real evalation of your performance.  So there would be actual standards associated with these ranks.  Keep in mind that the ES training is likely going to get significantly tougher in the near future as NIMS is implemented while I doubt much will change with the senior member training program. 

Problems:
A.  Special appointments:  Max out all special appointments (mission related, prior military, pilot, chaplain, etc) at 1st Lt.   Tell these folks that they may have been a great submarine commander 30 years ago, but our rank is based upon performing CAP missions only.  I really don't think they'll mind if they see that rank is so clearly linked their usefulness in a mission.  If they are a recently retired flying squadron Ops Officer from the AF, they will probably pretty quickly move through the system and get to an appropriate rank quickly if they're any good.  If they're not, I don't mind leaving them down in the lower ranks with the rest. 
 
B.  Folks who don't do ES would feel slighted.  They're great people doing good things, but ES is our primary mission (again, the money says it is).  Most should be able to get to 1st Lt. without much problem as MSAs or MROs if nothing else.  Keep in mind that under this proposal the vast majority of CAP members will probably be 1st Lts or Captains anyway, so its not like the non-ES people will be left behind. 

C.  People who let their qualifications lapse but still maintain their membership.  I haven't really seen this happen very often.  Usually if they let their quals lapse they are leaving CAP anyway.  The ones that stay probably have age or medical issues and frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with them maintaining the highest rank they earned.  Remember, only a relatively small number of people will be above Captain anyway, so if there is a former IC that now just want to be a pilot, yes he will be the "wrong" rank, but that will be such an aberation that it won't make much difference. 

D.  This will obviously still leave the problem of having rank discrepancies in squadrons (i.e, the 1st Lt. commanding a squadron that may have a few Majors or a Lt Col).  I don't see it as a major issue.  We've got along pretty well with this situation so far.  Like I said, most of the rank confusion issues relate to other agencies seeing us during missions.  They don't come to our meetings so they won't see the "problem". 

E.  What to do with professional development.  Instead of partially basing rank on prof development, recognize these achievements with ribbons.  Each specialty track would have a ribbon with devices to indicate advanced achievement in that area.  The CG Aux does something sort of like this to recognize particpation in various Aux programs.  So, there will still be some incentive for those who really care about the incentive.  Those who just take pride in their work will continue to do it just as they have in the past.

Thoughts?   

[CAP428]

Why change?  I see the points you made, but I still don't see what's wrong with what we have.

[RiverAux]

I am one of those who believe that your rank should have some logical relationship to your position of responsibility in an organizatin, especially a paramilitary one such as CAP.  If we are going to use rank at all, it needs to mean something and I am for tying it into some sort of framework that at least makes sense when it counts - on missions. 

I could go the other way and be in favor of abolishing rank as we know it, but I agree with many others that our current system makes no sense when viewed as a whole. 

[CAP428]

The fact that a rank should have a relationship to the position of responsibility makes sense.  But limiting that to ES makes absolutely no sense.

ES is important, but it is not the whole organization.

[Eclipse]

There are thousands of members and hundreds of units that do not participate in ES.

[DNall]

ES isn't really our primary mission, and it's also a great big catch all that covers about a dozen unrelated missions.

The Air Force is going to tell you they care about cadet programs more than ES & there are cheaper & better routes to do what's assigned to us than CAP. However, they are bale to kill two birds with one stone by giving us resources that can be used for both.

Now, what exactly does ES mean? You talking about SaR, cause that's on the basis on the new technology is reducing to a point that the above formula doesn't make sense anymore. Disaster, HLS, etc....

Is the IC that's good at SaR also going to be good at disaster assessment? Cause the crews sure as hell aren't, the operations & tasks are completely unrelated. You then going to have a SaR IC LtCol that goes on a HLS mission doing a 2Lt job?

Here's the other thing. According to the federal govt (NIMS), we're not qualified to do any of these things, be it on staff or the teams in the field. You want to re-make the organization on something we're terrible at? Now, we can get on board with NIMS, but the second we do you're going to realize how dramatically different & specialized people have to be for the varrious things we do - meaning to the exclusion of others.

And how about this, in an emergency response agency, people don't come up to positions like that. They are slected to a leadership postion, trained to lead/manage, and THEN trained to do the technical job in front of them. Most CAP members aren't capable of that - hell most people in the country aren't capable of that. Why you think some people are officers & some aren't? It isn't JUST training, but even if it were you're putting rank with a position title to make it look right, not making sure the people that put on that rank are capable/competent at each more advanced level & THEN picking from that pool to train the best & brightest for operational command positions. In other words, you coming at this completely backwards & proposing something, that even if we did ONLY ES, would still be a devestatingly bad idea.

Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, that's just the way it is. And, then looking forward our operational areas are changing dramatically too... it just doesn't fit or really make sense, particularly not at this point.

[arajca]

The titles for the various positions (IC, Section Chief, Unit Leader, etc) were selected to minimize confusion between a responder's agency grade and their IC position. It is not uncommon to have fire chiefs and asst chiefs serving as unit leaders on incidents and have fire Lt's or Capts serving as section chiefs or branch directors supervising thier normal boss.

[MIKE]

Why change?  I see the points you made, but I still don't see what's wrong with what we have.

Because we need to have 50 5 page threads on senior member grade posted in January alone. 

[RiverAux]

There are thousands of members and hundreds of units that do not participate in ES.

I don't know about hundreds of units, but yes, there are many people that don't participate in ES.  They would still be officers under my proposal and would get acknowledgement of their professional development and training through the use of ribbons. 

Now, what exactly does ES mean? You talking about SaR, cause that's on the basis on the new technology is reducing to a point that the above formula doesn't make sense anymore. Disaster, HLS, etc....

Not at all, we are still going to use the ICS command structure to respond to all these other missions as well.  I expect that over time we will add some disaster-specific ES specialties and those can be accomadated under this proposal very easily.   The Command and General staff structure will be the same for the mission whether HLS or SAR.  The only thing that might be different is the type of resources being used.   

Here's the other thing. According to the federal govt (NIMS), we're not qualified to do any of these things, be it on staff or the teams in the field.

And where is that said?  None of those requirements have been set in stone so there is no way or need for CAP to comply with them yet. 

And how about this, in an emergency response agency, people don't come up to positions like that. They are slected to a leadership postion, trained to lead/manage, and THEN trained to do the technical job in front of them. Most CAP members aren't capable of that - hell most people in the country aren't capable of that. Why you think some people are officers & some aren't? It isn't JUST training, but even if it were you're putting rank with a position title to make it look right, not making sure the people that put on that rank are capable/competent at each more advanced level & THEN picking from that pool to train the best & brightest for operational command positions. In other words, you coming at this completely backwards & proposing something, that even if we did ONLY ES, would still be a devestatingly bad idea.

I don't understand this comment at all.  Are you saying that we don't pick ICs based on their ability to lead?  Or Ground Team Leaders, etc?  All these folks have undergone training and demonstrated their competence to fulfill a specific position.  Once they done that and become qualified they would be promoted to the rank selected for that position.  I've got no problem with incorporating general leadership training courses into the ES system to, for example, ensure that our ICs/Lt Cols have received the best leadership training we have available. 

Now, just because in this proposal CAP rank would be based on ES qualifications, that does not mean that you cannot also have leadership training still as part of the CAP admin side of the house.   Heck, you could probably use the same courses for both purposes. 

It is not uncommon to have fire chiefs and asst chiefs serving as unit leaders on incidents and have fire Lt's or Capts serving as section chiefs or branch directors supervising thier normal boss.

That is very true but you're fogetting that when they are not on a fire, they have a rank structure that is logical for the administrative structure they use on a day-to-day basis.  In CAP we don't have that.  I am proposing that CAP ranks be based on ES positions so that we do have a logical basis for our ranks that makes sense where it counts -- on a mission.  If we had a system like the Fire Department which had 1 Captain running the unit with a few Lts. and the rest with no rank then there would be no need for my proposal, but that isn't the case. 

CAP's current "system" does not have rank tied to position either on missions or for administatively running the organization.  We need to make a choice. 

[Chappie]

Although I'm not the first to propose this, I don't believe its had its own thread.  How about basing adult CAP rank on your ES training?  Although I don't think its critical we argue about the specifics of which position goes with which rank, what I am suggesting would go something like this:

Limiting rank to ES training is not something I would support.   Granted it is where our roots lie...there are three missions within our organization.  As a Chaplain, we can and do support all three (don't know where the ranking by ES would put the Chaplain Service whose appointments are on par with the USAF Chaplain Service).  But the rank and file member is not bound to support all three.  There are excellent Cadet Programs people and AE people whose contributions are valued...but recognition by promotions for their training and service would be denied because they aren't actively involved in ES or hold a position on the ICS?  What about all those people who are diligent in pursuing their speciality training tracks as PDOs, Historians, Logistics, Supply, PAO, Communications, MLOs, Personnel, and the list goes on?  They are to be denied promotions in rank because they too are not actively involved in ES?   Talk about a Membership Retention nightmare.

[RiverAux]

As a Chaplain, we can and do support all three (don't know where the ranking by ES would put the Chaplain Service whose appointments are on par with the USAF Chaplain Service)

A lot of members participate in all 3 programs so that isn't unique.  Chaplains, assuming they were mission rated, would probably end up as Captains for being part of the Command Staff. 

Keep in mind that no one, including Chaplains, would be receiving any professional appointments above the rank of 1st Lt in my proposal.  So, Chaplains would come in as 1st Lts. and once they became mission qualified would become Captains. 

but recognition by promotions for their training and service would be denied because they aren't actively involved in ES or hold a position on the ICS?  What about all those people who are diligent in pursuing their speciality training tracks as PDOs, Historians, Logistics, Supply, PAO, Communications, MLOs, Personnel, and the list goes on?  They are to be denied promotions in rank because they too are not actively involved in ES?   Talk about a Membership Retention nightmare. 

Thats right.  They would be recognized for their achievements with ribbons and other such awards.

Remember, under my proposal probably 1-2% of CAP members would be Lt. Cols. (ICs), maybe 10-15% would be Majors, maybe 40-50% might be Captains, and probably about 30-40% would be 1st Lts, with maybe 10-20% being 2nd Lts.  So, promotions for everybody would be very limited. 

This isn't unique in American military history.  Back in the 1800s it was not terribly unusual for officers to stay at the same rank for 10-20 years before being promoted, but they kept at it. 

The Cadet Programs and those very few people who just do AE would not be unique.  They would most likely be 2Lts and would barely be any different in rank than most of the rest of the people in their unit.  Its not like all the ES folks would be Majors and Lt. Cols. and the CP guys would be 2Lts.   

For perspective, the CG Aux does not use rank.  They do use rank insignia based on your highest administrative office held.  The vast majority of folks have probably held only positions at the lowest level and therefore the majority of folks have the lowest possible officer grade insiginia on their uniforms.  Somehow they have managed to get along just fine with this system despite having extremely limited "promotion" opportunities. 

So, if you're the average member who doesn't really care about their rank anyway, you're not going to mind the "limitations" of my proposed system. 

[RiverAux]

Problem F:  System Phase In.  My system would take effect immediately but everyone currently in CAP would retain their existing rank.  For "ideological purity" it would be better to demote them to the appropriate rank but that would very obviously drive off a lot of folks unnecessarily. 

In the short run this system would probably result in quite a few promotions as those IC Captains get bumped to Lt. Col. or the 2Lt Mission Pilot goes up to Captain. 

Over the long run (10-20 years), the upper ranks would start to thin out as Lt. Cols and Majors retired or left CAP and eventually our rank system would fall somewhere near the percentages I estimated above.  So, I don't see any short-term membership retention issues at all since all those who do cadet programs or AE and nothing else would still get to be where they are. 

Frankly, promotions would be so limited in my system that I very much doubt the CP or AE guys would feel that singled out. 

[lordmonar]

I don't think this would solve any problems either.

If all it take to be a Lt Col is to be IC qualified.....there is still no requirment for all IC qualified people to be the IC.

So we still end up with people who are qualified to take on high responsibility jobs doing low responsibility jobs.

[RiverAux]

Tell me how many ICs you know that have given up their IC status and now only run the radio at the mission base?  Probably not many.  Yes, it will happen.

Under my system there woud eventually only be a small number of field grade officers anyway.  If a few of them decide to give up their higher qualifications and do "lower" jobs, that won't throw the system too out of whack.

However, in my experience these folks are more likely to be leaving CAP for good rather than stepping down to do lower work.  In my Wing we do not have a single ex-Incident Commander that I am aware of and only a few ex-Section Chief level people.   

Every other proposal on here would result in far more people who at one time held a high job but do very little now since we do not have up-or-out rules (and shouldn't). 

With my system this woud be the exception rather than the rule.  Face it -- there is no way to solve that problem in a volunteer organization.  My proposal minimizes it as much as possible.  Its not perfect, but its better than it is now. 

[lordmonar]

Tell me how many ICs you know that have given up their IC status and now only run the radio at the mission base?  Probably not many.  Yes, it will happen.

I just came from our monthly SAREX....there are at least eight IC qualified members working our mission base staff, flying missions and one as the GOBD.

Under my system there woud eventually only be a small number of field grade officers anyway.  If a few of them decide to give up their higher qualifications and do "lower" jobs, that won't throw the system too out of whack.

Then you run the risk of not having an IC available when you need one.  We are a volunteer organisation with other commitments to our time.

However, in my experience these folks are more likely to be leaving CAP for good rather than stepping down to do lower work.  In my Wing we do not have a single ex-Incident Commander that I am aware of and only a few ex-Section Chief level people.

Qualifications are good for three years.  Are you impling that once someone becomes IC qualified they then quit?  Maybe they are over worked?   

Every other proposal on here would result in far more people who at one time held a high job but do very little now since we do not have up-or-out rules (and shouldn't). 

With my system this woud be the exception rather than the rule.  Face it -- there is no way to solve that problem in a volunteer organization.  My proposal minimizes it as much as possible.  Its not perfect, but its better than it is now.

I don't see how it could be the exception.  Someone gets IC qualified puts on Lt Col and then never works IC again.  The next year's worth of SAREX someon else is the IC or is training to be IC.  He spends that time flying or working AOBD or Planning or mission breifing.....but all this time he is a Lt Col.

[RiverAux]

Then you run the risk of not having an IC available when you need one.  We are a volunteer organisation with other commitments to our time.

How do you figure?  We would still have more or less the same number of ICs as we have now, they would just all be Lt. Cols. 

One of the "pros" of my system is that if anything it would encourage more CAP members to participate in ES (with which we are always short-handed).  In particular it would give some solid rewards to those overworked people who take on IC and upper level base staff tasks.  Very few are willing to do it.  According to the HLS resources database CAP only has 821 ICs. 

Qualifications are good for three years.  Are you impling that once someone becomes IC qualified they then quit?  Maybe they are over worked?   

No, I'm saying that most ICs don't tend to ever give up their IC qualifications -- they tend to leave the organizatin first.  This could be due to retiring due to age or other committments.   

I don't see how it could be the exception.  Someone gets IC qualified puts on Lt Col and then never works IC again.

Sure, I suppose there is some risk of that but I don't see it as a significant concern.  Keep in mind, you need pretty high level approval to become an IC and I think they would be able to spot most of the losers who might try to game the system that way.

If it was a significant problem (which it wouldn't be), you could always require a certain amount of time in position before the promotion would become effective.  For example, once you became IC-qualified you might have to serve in that position long enough to renew once before you would be promoted.  This would actually serve to spread out the promotions a little bit and might not be a bad idea.  Otherwise some one could join CAP top out in their first 2 years or so(assuming most won't move beyond aircrew/ground team level) at Captain.    This would also meet the concerns of those worried about giving them a rank that they haven't really proven they can handle.  They would need to demonstrate continued competency at the IC/Lt Col level before actually being promoted to Lt. Col. 

[flyguy06]

RivrAux,
I'm just curious, how long have you been in CAP? Your CAP is apparently different than the organization I belong to. The CAP I belong to supports cadet programs way more than they do ES. Basically you are discriminating against those who choose not to be involoved in ES and limit their climb. In your plan a guy who cant afford ES gear or who actually has a 9 to 5 job and cant spend time to get ES qualified is just out of luck.

[RiverAux]

I've had over a dozen years of CAP experience and am a former cadet. 

Basically you are discriminating against those who choose not to be involoved in ES and limit their climb. In your plan a guy who cant afford ES gear or who actually has a 9 to 5 job and cant spend time to get ES qualified is just out of luck.

How many of you have considered that the current CAP system "discriminates" against those who devote significant time to the ES program?  It is very difficult and time consuming to get and maintain ES qualifications and it is likely to get even more difficult as NIMS is implemented.

Why is it fair that an Incident Commander that may be in charge of running a dozen planes and well over a hundred members on a major mission in which somebody's life hangs in the balance might only be a Lt., while someone who has done nothing other than hold various staff jobs (which they may or may not have actually performed), took a correspondence course, and attended a few classes with no real tests could be a Lt. Col? 

What I am saying here is that our ES system is the one thing that CAP does that actually requires people to really demonstrate skills to get qualified and actually requires you to use those skills on a regular basis to maintain that qualification.   Do those skills apply to everything we do?  Not at all, and I recognize that. 

But, I think it is the fairest way of approaching the problem of matching CAP rank with level of responsibility and training that will most of the time result in higher rank people being in charge of lower rank people during missions. 

[arajca]

But, I think it is the fairest way of approaching the problem of matching CAP rank with level of responsibility and training that will most of the time result in higher rank people being in charge of lower rank people during missions. 

But will it have the same effect on our regular operations? In my experience, those folks near the top of the ICS chain tend not be near the top at the unit.

[RiverAux]

No, it would not in any way relate to our day to day ops.  But, like I said at the top, our current system doesn't relate to day-to-day ops or ES.  We have to make a choice to base our rank on one or the other if we want rank to equal responsibility.  I am choosing ES.

But, like I said, I could go with the CG Aux model where "rank" (such as it is) is totally based on your administrative offce in the organization.  I just don't think that works as well since you are going to have far more people who no longer hold high office still participating in the organization.  My CG Aux unit has quite a few people that have held high office and currently "outrank" our flotilla commander. 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving our current professional development and senior member training programs but just want to divorce them from the rank and promotion system.