Iowa Wing lowers officer requirements??

Started by capchiro, January 16, 2007, 09:39:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?

"That Others May Zoom"

sandman

#41
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 18, 2007, 03:16:04 AM
I have no problem with divergent views...but we cannot  tolerate discrimination in any form.   

I understand what you're saying in the context of this discussion thread. You use the word discrimination in a social science context.

Be careful, discrimination, even in the social science environment, is an important tool used everyday in peace and war. Because of our unwillingness to discriminate (fear of lawyers), this country is falling apart thread by thread everyday because we no longer have the determination, the guts to discriminate or profile individuals or groups based on race or religion for fear of being called a racist or intolerant.

Frankly, I don't care. Call me what you will, but you would end up calling almost all of your military members and police the same thing (enlisted admit it candidly; officers probably won't due to "PC"). Discrimination will save lives. Profiling will save lives. The momentary inconvenience someone may experience I can care less about.

In the context of this thread, the general thought is that discrimination needs to take place more often in recommending promotions. I agree. If an individual meets the requirements for an advancement then you have participated in discrimination using regulations as a basis for the discrimination.

If the promoting authority has the will and authority to deny or delay a promotion because a member (meeting all of the basic criteria) lacks some important training for the position, then do so. The member can ask a higher authority to override the decision and that is fine too.

The important thing is that the immediate approving authority and his or her higher authority up through the chain concur on weither or not the individual requesting a promotion deserves it at that time (and are backed up by regulations).

Here's a thought, why not have a cap on grades such as the active duty have? A pyramid if you will. Wing "A" is authorized as many second lieutenants, first lieutenants, and captains as they can pump out, but only x number of majors per five years with an x number of those able to advance to lieutenant colonel, etc.

I realize that DOPMA guidelines for active duty officers will not be the best solution (CAP members stay in longer than 20 years and it's not "up or out") but it is a framework in place to work from.

DOPMA= Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (1980)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4246/R4246.sec2.pdf

[/soapbox controversy]

New thread?
MAJ, US Army (Ret)
Major, Civil Air Patrol
Major, 163rd ATKW Support, Joint Medical Command

RiverAux

Would need to arrange the pyramid based on percentage of membership rather than absolute numbers to account for the fact that CAP membership isn't capped like AF is. 

lordmonar

Can anyone say rank stagnation?

"Sorry you can't get promoted to Maj because we have too many Lt Cols in the squadron"

"Sorry you can't get promoted to Captain because our squadron is too small".

Capping CAP rank to membership levels will only work if you have a mechanism of retiring or discharging members not working at the rank on their shoulder.

Unless we make the ranks temporary and tied to specific jobs. (which I am not totally opposed to.)

But this is back to the same old argument about our rank structure.

On the Iowa issue.

Right now just about anyone can become a 2nd Lt.  It takes reading a couple of power point slides, one on line test and a mentoring session with your PD officer/commander.

So no Iowa is not lowering standards....there is just a general misconceptions of what the standards really were.

Do we need to raise those standards?  Sure.  Make Level training required for FO.  Make all members be FO when they first join.  Make Level II the requirement for 2d Lt.  1st Lt and Capt can be mission related skills, continuing education, staff time, and other "harder" requirements.

A hard pyramid will only hurt the organisation.  It will make it hard for new energetic officers to make rank because the old guys just won't die off.

Ask anyone who is in a guard unit.  They move up very fast to a particular level and then stagnate because the crusty old chief will not retire.  Even if they younger TSgt or MSgt is better qualified for the job...he can't move up because there is no mechanism of getting rid of the old guys.

So in CAP the small units will be able to quickly fill up their Table Of Allowance but larger squadrons will be stagnated with ex CC's and ex wing staffers.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

TDHenderson

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?

Yes.  I believe the current class is the sixth OTS "cycle" since it started. 

I believe the only exception would be a Mitchell or higher Cadet transitioning to Officer membership.  They would not have to go through the sixth-month OTS.

lordmonar

Quote from: TDHenderson on January 19, 2007, 01:00:17 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?

Yes.  I believe the current class is the sixth OTS "cycle" since it started. 

I believe the only exception would be a Mitchell or higher Cadet transitioning to Officer membership.  They would not have to go through the sixth-month OTS.

Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?

Last year...they could "require" everyone to attend OTS because the only way to get your Level I was to go to the class that they only taught at their OTS. 

But now that Level I is CPP, Foundation Training and the OPSEC course...all on-line.  How can they justify not awarding Level I to someone who demonstately has met CAP requirements?

Secondly...Wing has little or no direct control over 2d Lt promotions.  Squadron CC Gumby of the Far Back Composite Squadron can send in the 2A with our wing intervention.

Now...they can apply indirect pressure by giving Capt Gumby a hard time, even kick him out....but by regulations IOWG cannot add additional requirements to the promotion process and AFAK you have to use the on-line program now.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AM
Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?

Good point. 35-5 says in the first paragraph that it will not be supplemented. They may have waiver from National on their program.

However, 39-2 doesn't appear to have anything restricting a supplement to it. They could be working that angle. Basically, "You join us, you take our OTS." Don't know, just a supposition.

Guardrail

Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMNot wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirements for promotion?

Last year...they could "require" everyone to attend OTS because the only way to get your Level I was to go to the class that they only taught at their OTS.

Yes sir, it is against regulations to add additional requirements for promotion.

Requiring everyone to attend OTS by having Level I only available at OTS would also be against regulations, I believe.  I think Level I (before going on-line) was supposed to be done at the squadron level, and a wing OTS would constitute a wing activity.     

Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMBut now that Level I is CPP, Foundation Training and the OPSEC course...all on-line.  How can they justify not awarding Level I to someone who demonstratively has met CAP requirements?

They can't sir; it's discrimination.   

Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMSecondly...Wing has little or no direct control over 2d Lt promotions.  Squadron CC Gumby of the Far Back Composite Squadron can send in the 2A with our wing intervention.

Now...they can apply indirect pressure by giving Capt Gumby a hard time, even kick him out....but by regulations IOWG cannot add additional requirements to the promotion process and AFAK you have to use the on-line program now.

I'm not sure if the online program is required or not, but WIWAC it was done at the squadron and it was against regulations to add additional requirements for promotion.  If such a move was sanctioned by National, I would think the additional requirements would be required for all wings nationwide. 

Hawk200

Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 02:37:42 AM
If such a move was sanctioned by National, I would think the additional requirements would be required for all wings nationwide. 

Not necessarily. The Iowa program might be in consideration as a blueprint or a pilot program (not in the sense of flying pilot). Could be the prototype of things to come.

Before you enact something, it's got to be tested. What better way than let a wing take the reins? Besides, if it falls flat, you've got someone to blame ;)

Eclipse

#49
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:32:36 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AM
Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?

Good point. 35-5 says in the first paragraph that it will not be supplemented. They may have waiver from National on their program.

However, 39-2 doesn't appear to have anything restricting a supplement to it. They could be working that angle. Basically, "You join us, you take our OTS." Don't know, just a supposition.
Thank you, that's the exact angle I was aiming at.  35-5 can't be supplanted.  NYWG found that out fast as soon as their nonsense saw the light of day.

If there is an addendum or supplement in place, I'd like to see it.

Does this mean they would not accept grade from other Wings? 

That question is the whole point of having a level-playing field for the whole country.  You don't want one Wing creating "super officers" walking around with superior attitudes.  Their uber-Lt's would still need to salute out plain ordinary capts.

From what I can tell IAWG would be better off reincorporating as a state defense force and rocking their own world.  The more I read, the more they appear to be more of an IANG/Aux than CAP.

But they'd never do that, would they?  Because out would go the planes, the money, the bling, and the attention.

"That Others May Zoom"

Guardrail

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:44:03 AMNot necessarily. The Iowa program might be in consideration as a blueprint or a pilot program (not in the sense of flying pilot). Could be the prototype of things to come.

Then wouldn't National at least tell us about it?  Not only would it put an end to speculation and rumors, but it would also help boost morale.  This is a big step forward in CAP's officer training program, and people should know about it.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:44:03 AMBefore you enact something, it's got to be tested. What better way than let a wing take the reins? Besides, if it falls flat, you've got someone to blame ;)

Very true, Hawk200.  And it seems like Iowa Wing is a great place to test an OTS program to see if it would work nationwide.   

Hawk200

Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 02:49:00 AMThen wouldn't National at least tell us about it?  Not only would it put an end to speculation and rumors, but it would also help boost morale.  This is a big step forward in CAP's officer training program, and people should know about it.

Yeah, people should know about it. But think what it's been like for the last year. A number of people want National to tell us what's going on, and it doesn't seem like they are.

People want to know where we're headed, what the organization's vision is. We're not hearing about that stuff, IAWG's OTS program probably isn't even an afterthought.

Eclipse

My guess would be that it simply never occurred to them to tell anyone, or they know that the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be so loud that they would want to get some momentum before its rolled. out.

On a side note, Level 1 is NOT done online, a portion of it is, however completion still requires discussion with the unit CC.

"That Others May Zoom"

JohnKachenmeister

Iowa's program is from the bottom up.  They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.

National is trying to catch up.
Another former CAP officer

Eclipse

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AM
Iowa's program is from the bottom up.  They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.

National is trying to catch up.

Oh, OK then the regs don't apply at all! 

I understand now.

"That Others May Zoom"

fyrfitrmedic

 Sometimes it seems like much of the objection re: IAWG's efforts reeks of 'not invented here' syndrome.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 02:59:40 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AM
Iowa's program is from the bottom up.  They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.

National is trying to catch up.

Oh, OK then the regs don't apply at all! 

I understand now.

What reg doesn't apply?

New members are brought in against the wing's charter number, and their unit (The wing) conducts training.  They give them Level 1, CPPT, AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months.

What regulation says they can't do that?
Another former CAP officer

Hawk200

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AMNational is trying to catch up.

Or as some people might see it, trying to figure out how to take credit.

I'd bet a fitty that when this gets up to Congress or some other high muckety-muck, someone at National will start by saying "We initially ran this program in Iowa Wing to see how it might work..."

Sorry, my cynical streak kicked into high gear tonight...

lordmonar

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 03:28:21 AMWhat reg doesn't apply?

New members are brought in against the wing's charter number, and their unit (The wing) conducts training.  They give them Level 1, CPPT, AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months.

What regulation says they can't do that?

John...I really don't want to sound like a nay sayer because I like a lot of what Iowa is doing and I like the idea of an OTS....but the question is.....do you have to got to OTS?

Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 11. General. Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly throughout Civil Air Patrol. CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures, and practices prescribed herein are prohibited.

Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 66. Minimum Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for initial appointment to CAP officer grade, senior members must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program (see CAPR 50-17). NOTE: Former members who have completed Level I training and have less than a 2 year membership break and former cadets who have earned the General Billy Mitchell Award, or higher, and have less than a 2 year membership break are exempt from Level I training requirements.
d. Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.

I don't see "AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months" as one of the requirements for initial appointment.

So...by regulation....if a guy went to the first weekend class...got is CPPT credit and his foundation credit, came home and did his OPSEC training, his commander could appoint him 2d Lt....and there is nothing IOWG could do.  Even then...does IOWG have a directive out there forbidding unit commanders (flight and squadron) from conducting the CPPT and Foundations mentorship sessions?

Additionally

Quote from: CAPR 50-17 Para 3-63-6. How Conducted.  Commanders should ensure that regions, wings, groups, and squadrons offer Level I training at least once each quarter for new members.

Quote from: CAPR 50-17 opening statementCommanders at each echelon have the responsibility to support the Senior Member Professional Development Program in accordance with the provisions of this regulation.

Now...again....I love the idea of an OTS....but in regards to the regulations can you hold back a promotion (or demotion as the promotion does not go through wing) for someone who did not go to the OTS?

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ZigZag911

My understanding is that all new seniors in Iowa join IA001 and remain there through full Level 1 plus a number of other entry level courses (GES, for instance) that constitute some or all of IA OTS.

They are reassigned on OTS completion (and promotion to 2 Lt?) and transferred to squadrons.

It may seem like an unusual approach, but I don't think it violates CAP regs.