Retired General Officers in CAP

[ZigZag911]

I just read the thread about Lt Gen Honore (commander of federal troops in Katrina relief effort) retiring.

One poster suggested recruiting him to CAP; another responded he'd have to drop to Lt Col from Lt Gen!

We're missing an important resource,  retired general officers & flag officers (Navy or Coast Guard), we have no facility to involve them even if they are interested.

It's a loss to CAP, because "Lt Gen Zilch" or "Rear Admiral Whatshisname" sounds a lot more impressive to state legislators, tv & radio producers, corporate contributors and the public at large than "captain, major, or lt col" do!

Why doesn't the NB establish a 'retired flag officers squadron' as part of the NHQ structure?

Permit (in fact, encourage) them to wear the equivalent of their active duty rank and use the appropriate AF title (general, lt gen, etc).

If they want to participate in local units or wings as advisors, instructors, pilots, aircrew, whatever -- terrific!  think of the photo ops, all you PAO types!

I don't foresee USAF objecting to retired flag officers retaingin their earned grade in CAP....actually, this might also be an answer to retired O-6s joining, too....if they want to be active members of local units, wing staff, etc, then they accept the bust to lt col.....if they simply want to support the program, have a membership unit for them at national also, and they wear their eagles....no one will confuse them with NB members, they won't have NB badge.

[lordmonar]

We already have retired general officers in CAP at the squadron level.....and they are just fine with being lowly Lt Cols.

If Lt Gen such and such sounds better....well lets just make all the wing CC's one stars, regional a two star position and National CC a 4 star.

Sounds good on paper....but your idea would just cause too much havoc with an already messed up rank system.

[flyguy06]

e have a hand full of one star Generals and even one or two two star. But when you get to the three and four star Generals, well, they are on a whol nother playng field. 3 and 4 GO's anre not on the same level as 1 and 2 star GO's

[LittleIronPilot]

We just promoted a SM to Lt Col after his paperwork came from HQ. He is a retired Navy O-6 and he has no problem with be a Lt Col.

If someone really wants to serve they will not care too much about the lowered rank. Though to be honest most will still call them General or whatever behind closed doors, just as a sign of respect.

[Gunner C]

I think the point might have been missed here:  These flag officers, such as Gen Honore, could be great assets at the national level (especially 3-4 button). 

They command HUGE amounts of respect in DC and their word carries weight.  Using them, if they're so inclined, as emmissaries to cabinate and sub-cabinate officers would give great weight to the CAP message.

They know how to brief, how to rub elbows with congress and governors, and could be great advisors to the national CC.  These guys grew up doing these things unlike CAP officers who don't get schooled at high levels for this type of duty. Not their fault, just the way the program is.

Just my gentle opinion.  :angel:

GC

[ZigZag911]

I understand there are O-6s & flag officers who want to be active in CAP and are fine with SM or Lt Col.

I'm talking here about a PAO type resource, almost an "honorary" membership category....and putting them in a NHQ level membership unit should avoid the rank confusion problem entirely -- they would not be in chain of command.

Hey, just an idea....even if we do it, I don't think we're suddenly going to have several dozen CAP lt generals running around!

[DNall]

There are indeed several retired GOs in CAP. I don't know that we've ever had an active member still on duty as a GO, but it wouldn't suprise me a whole lot (depending on how you define "active"). I understand that:

If someone really wants to serve they will not care too much about the lowered rank.

BUT, a lot of those guys do care. Being a general officer means getting your ego stroked, a lot. It's part of the gig.

I do believe we miss out of a lot of high quality folks that we might be able to capture IF we were willing to bring them in at grade. If you recall folks like Gen Fogleman that was a HUGE supporter of CAP when he was CoS. Someone like that could be a HUGE presence for CAP on the national level. I know that guy can walk into a congressional office unannounced & ask for time where folks on our end (paid consultants or otherwise) cannot. Hell, someone like that can call himself to solve most problems. You don't even need to involve an elected official for the most part.

What we have been doing is putting those golks on the BoG, which is nice, but I'd appreciate expanding that effort to something like has been discussed. And just in general (pardon the pun) I got no issue with them retaining their grade in CAP. I think that's highly appropriate. Our grade structure is all jacked up anyway. What's the difference between a LtCol working for a Capt or 1st Lt and a LtGen working for a Major?

[lordmonar]

I think the point might have been missed here:  These flag officers, such as Gen Honore, could be great assets at the national level (especially 3-4 button). 

They command HUGE amounts of respect in DC and their word carries weight.  Using them, if they're so inclined, as emmissaries to cabinate and sub-cabinate officers would give great weight to the CAP message.

They know how to brief, how to rub elbows with congress and governors, and could be great advisors to the national CC.  These guys grew up doing these things unlike CAP officers who don't get schooled at high levels for this type of duty. Not their fault, just the way the program is.

Just my gentle opinion.  :angel:

GC

Great ideal....let's get him on the BoG.

[SAR-EMT1]

I think the point might have been missed here:  These flag officers, such as Gen Honore, could be great assets at the national level (especially 3-4 button). 

They command HUGE amounts of respect in DC and their word carries weight.  Using them, if they're so inclined, as emmissaries to cabinate and sub-cabinate officers would give great weight to the CAP message.

They know how to brief, how to rub elbows with congress and governors, and could be great advisors to the national CC.  These guys grew up doing these things unlike CAP officers who don't get schooled at high levels for this type of duty. Not their fault, just the way the program is.

Just my gentle opinion.  :angel:

GC

Great ideal....let's get him on the BoG.

But how often is our CURRENT BoG used as a PAO or political resource?
I see where ZigZag is going with this.

That causes me to reiterate a question I asked previously in another thread:
How many "RM" Flag Officers are currently in CAP ?

[RiverAux]

Frankly, I don't see too many retired generals getting involved with CAP just to be public affairs spokesmen or by using their connections for CAP's benefit.  Most of them probably had little to no involvement with CAP while on active duty and probably wouldn't be all that good in promoting the program unless they spent some time down in the CAP trenches.  The number of retired generals is pretty darn low in the first place and as probably only a tiny percent would be interested in CAP I don't see any real benefit of going out of the way to change our ways for them. 

[SAR-EMT1]

Im sorry, I didnt mean to suggest that Generals should join for the sole reason of being a CAP mouthpiece. Nor do I mean to suggest that we should force them to.

[lordmonar]

I think the point might have been missed here:  These flag officers, such as Gen Honore, could be great assets at the national level (especially 3-4 button). 

They command HUGE amounts of respect in DC and their word carries weight.  Using them, if they're so inclined, as emmissaries to cabinate and sub-cabinate officers would give great weight to the CAP message.

They know how to brief, how to rub elbows with congress and governors, and could be great advisors to the national CC.  These guys grew up doing these things unlike CAP officers who don't get schooled at high levels for this type of duty. Not their fault, just the way the program is.

Just my gentle opinion.  :angel:

GC

Great ideal....let's get him on the BoG.

But how often is our CURRENT BoG used as a PAO or political resource?
I see where ZigZag is going with this.

That causes me to reiterate a question I asked previously in another thread:
How many "RM" Flag Officers are currently in CAP ?

There's one in the Nellis Senior Squadron.

[ZigZag911]

BoG is a very different role; good place to involve retired generals, but really there's only room for two there.

Again, I don't foresee a whole lot of RM retired generals getting involved in CAP as spokespersons or motivational speakers (wing conferences, NBs, Cadet Officer School, NSC, anyone?)....but even a handful could do us a world of good in Congress, the media, and even the corporate world.

And imagine if we ever got someone like Brig Gen Chuck Yeager, Gen Chuck Horner, or the late R. Adm Wally Schirra?

[DNall]

No one, including NHQ, can tell you how many retired general officers are in CAP, because no one keeps track of that. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 20, but that's just tossing a number out there.

CAP is the best kept secret & all that... is there really anyone here that thinks we're so well off we couldn't benefit from having some of these folks as advocates, however limited or extensive that service may be?

We give advanced promotions to teachers, doctors, lawyers, CFIs, amateur radio folks, etc... none of those people know anything at all about CAP coming in, and for the most part they don't ever use their outside qualification for CAP. We have a congressional & several legislative Sqs that give advanced grade & they exist solely to make advocates in those spheres. If anything, a general officer is more deserving & potentially more helpful to us than any of those others.

And finally, who here thinks they or CAP is good enough to tell them they don't deserve the grade they earned. You want to tell me how CAP is a different thing? Okay, on one hand it is, but on another level it is all about dealing with & relating to the military & federal govt. Who is more qualified than a congressionally confirmed general officer to do that? Who here is so proud of their grade or thinks it's so meaningful that a general officer doesn't deserve his?

So what's the problem? All military personnel need to be brought over in their full grade.  And, we do need to establish an advocacy Sq, similiar to a legislative Sq & attached to BoG, where folks like that can be attached. If they want to serve locally then by all means. If they don't want to serve as an advocate or command advisor, then that's fine too. But, we shouldn't be discouraging things that can help us, especially not when we're being so liveral with grade in other areas.

[freeflight]

The Utah Wing has a Brigadier General in its wing staff.  Brigadier General (Ret) Stuart Boyd (USAF), Lt Col, CAP.

[FW]

Even though the highest grade a non-corporate officer in CAP can receive is "Lt Col.", we allow AD/Ret general officers to wear their grade on the Blazer uniform.  When Lt Gen/ret. Charlie Searock (former commander of AF Logistics Command), former NJWG/LG and current member of the BoG is in CAP uniform, it usually is the Blazer combo with 3 stars on the nameplate.  
Before that, he was very satisfied to be known as SM Searock.

[ZigZag911]

My understanding (and this came from highly placed sources in NJW) was that Lt Gen Searock was definitely not amused by the notion of being a lt col again, and chose instead to remain a SMWG. He was making a point, not acquiescing to the situation.

I recall an NJW banquet five or six years ago at which gen. Searock was the guest speaker.....if I recall correctly, he wore his AF uniform and had his 3 star flag displayed!

[DNall]

...we allow AD/Ret general officers to wear their grade on the Blazer uniform...

That's absolutely not authorized. He might as well get some gray CAP LtGen slides made up & go back to wearing blues.

We had a LtGen here some years ago that was very unhappy about being a LtCol again. It was insisted upon for him to recieve an award at a Wg conf at one point. He wore USAF blues all day. Came into the awards w/ CAP stuff on his blues shirt. Took his award, then walked out of the room, came back a couple minutes later w/ AF service coat on top.

[FW]

Sorry D, the NEC allowed this practice about 2 years ago.  As far as I know, BG (ret)Jaeger and Lt Gen(ret) Searock both have stars on their (black) name plate. 

[DNall]

really? I've seen nothing in regs/chg ltrs to reflect that (I'd appreciate a cite if you have one). My position would be that it's highly inappropriate. It's either their CAP grade or it's not. It's being worn on an offical CAP uniform with obvious implications.

[Hawk200]

Sorry D, the NEC allowed this practice about 2 years ago.  As far as I know, BG (ret)Jaeger and Lt Gen(ret) Searock both have stars on their (black) name plate. 

Is that just in some Board minutes, or is it an actual policy in writing that is openly accessible to all the membership? If not, it's wrong.

[Gunner C]

Sorry D, the NEC allowed this practice about 2 years ago.  As far as I know, BG (ret)Jaeger and Lt Gen(ret) Searock both have stars on their (black) name plate. 

I've seen Lt Gen Searock at the National Boards twice with his stars on his name tag.  No one batted an eye.

GC

[DNall]

That doesn't make it legal. No one tells LtGens, their uniform is wrong. Especially not ones they don't know, and they don't press when they have an excuse about NEC this or that. If it's not in published regs/policy ltr/etc then it is not legal, no matter who said or did what.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to wear it that way if he wants to. Quite the contrary. I'm saying he should be granted his full grade in CAP & be able to wear it on any of our uniform combinations, just like anyone else. He's earned it, he deserves it, and it'd benefit CAP to have it be that way. I don't think we need our pride getting in the way of that. The policy should be changed to that effect.

[ZigZag911]

If it's not in published regs/policy ltr/etc then it is not legal, no matter who said or did what. 

"Not legal" is a bit strong, I doubt anyone entitled to wearing 3 stars (or 2, or 1) would be subject to arrest and prosecution for this 'offense'....what we have here is a breach of CAP regulations....which, by the way, I agree should be altered to fit this circumstance.

[FW]

If it's not in published regs/policy ltr/etc then it is not legal, no matter who said or did what. 

"Not legal" is a bit strong, I doubt anyone entitled to wearing 3 stars (or 2, or 1) would be subject to arrest and prosecution for this 'offense'....what we have here is a breach of CAP regulations....which, by the way, I agree should be altered to fit this circumstance.

39-1 states that the grade on the black name tag is optional.  I'll make the leap of faith that gives the means to put stars on the name tag.  I have a good feeling the new manual will specify this.
However, I disagree with making new rules for grades in CAP.  Grades end at  Lt Col.  for the membership.  Col's are for Corp. Officers,  General Officers are for the 2 elected positions.    We let retired generals put their grade only on the black name tag as a privilege for their service. 
I'm honored to have known 3 retired generals in CAP.  NONE have complained about being a CAP member -- regardless of their CAP grade.
I think this is pretty much a non issue.

[ZigZag911]

AGAIN, this is decidedly not about making retired generals and full colonels happy....it is about their value to CAP as speakers, recruiters, liaisons to legisllators, and so forth.

A shiny eagle or a star or two is a heck of a lot more impressive than railroad tracks or oak leaves!

[DNall]

"Not legal" is a bit strong...

Okay, granted. Not within regs is what I mean. I guess you could make an argument for legal, but it'd never stand up in court & doesn't matter anyway.

39-1 states that the grade on the black name tag is optional.  I'll make the leap of faith that gives the means to put stars on the name tag. I have a good feeling the new manual will specify this.

That's a big leap. Saying wear of CAP grade is optional is VERY different than saying wear of some other rank is allowed. An Army NCO couldn't wear Army stripes in that slot, correct? You see what I mean?

I don't think the manual being worked on by the current cmte is planning to specify this, not unless directed to do so by NHQ, which I haven't heard about. Again, I don't think it's appropriate being it's not CAP grade & is on a CAP uniform.

However, I disagree with making new rules for grades in CAP.  Grades end at  Lt Col.  for the membership.  Col's are for Corp. Officers,  General Officers are for the 2 elected positions. 

Okay, but WHY does it end w/ LtCol for membership & the rest are special? Based on the value of grade from LtCol down, why is it appropriate block those upper grades from people that have earned them in the military?

I understand it isn't necessarily a huge issue for the GOs that currently choose to serve in CAP despite this policy. What of the many other O-6+ officers that choose not to serve in CAP, maybe in some part because they find a serious demotion unappealing or insulting. Is there no value to capturing some of those folks, in whatever role or status that may be?

[FW]

Even if the committee doesn't  remember to put it in 39-1 (remember, the NEC has voted to allow it, but due to my CRS disease, I forgot when it happened) It will get in by the time the NB votes on it.

The other questions are good ones.  I guess we could ask again: Why are grades needed in CAP for anyone?  It's an oldie but a goodie and has been discussed ad nauseam here and there for years.  

In the meantime, I guess letting our distinguished retired O7's and above wear their grade on the black name tag as an appropriate honor we allow them.

[Gunner C]

If it's not in published regs/policy ltr/etc then it is not legal, no matter who said or did what. 

"Not legal" is a bit strong, I doubt anyone entitled to wearing 3 stars (or 2, or 1) would be subject to arrest and prosecution for this 'offense'....what we have here is a breach of CAP regulations....which, by the way, I agree should be altered to fit this circumstance.

My advice would be to get over it.  If not, go ahead and let Lt Gen X that you're offended that he's wearing the rank that was nominated by the president and confirmed by congress.  Just let me know ahead of time - I'd like to buy a ticket to that show. 

GC

[Gunner C]

AGAIN, this is decidedly not about making retired generals and full colonels happy....it is about their value to CAP as speakers, recruiters, liaisons to legisllators, and so forth.

A shiny eagle or a star or two is a heck of a lot more impressive than railroad tracks or oak leaves!

Someone gets it. 

[Cecil DP]

Even though the highest grade a non-corporate officer in CAP can receive is "Lt Col.", we allow AD/Ret general officers to wear their grade on the Blazer uniform.  When Lt Gen/ret. Charlie Searock (former commander of AF Logistics Command), former NJWG/LG and current member of the BoG is in CAP uniform, it usually is the Blazer combo with 3 stars on the nameplate.  
Before that, he was very satisfied to be known as SM Searock.

I believe LtGen Searock wears a nametag that says "Board of Governors" not Civil Air Patrol. As a member of the BofG he is appointed by the SecAF, not as a member of CAP. Therefore he wears 3 stars, while representing the Secretary of the Air Force.  It raises the question of whether he is actually a member of CAp, in addition to his membership of the BofG.

[FW]

Actually, he is a "joint appointee" by the Nat'l/CC and SECAF.
Gen. Searock is still a member of NJWG although he has since moved to another state.

[Hawk200]

"Not legal" is a bit strong.....

One of the definitions of the word "legal" : 3: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

Please note the emphasis.  And for the people who are going to verify : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/legal

You don't have to be in a court of law or an attorney to use the term "legal". Something in compliance with regs is "legal", something not in compliance is "not legal".

On another note, if a certain general gets to wear his three stars, why shouldn't former Colonels get to wear their eagles? How exactly has one general earned his stars any more than a one/two star or colonel has earned theirs?

Some might get an impression that keeping your (higher) rank is about who you know.

[Cecil DP]

Actually, he is a "joint appointee" by the Nat'l/CC and SECAF.
Gen. Searock is still a member of NJWG although he has since moved to another state.

SECAF and CAP don't have "joint appointees", he is either representing the AF or CAP. and CAP  already has their 4 members set in granite, although the National Commander's slot is vacant until a new one is elected.

[FW]

Michael,  JFYI.
This is from the CAP Constitution:
                          ARTICLE VIII-B
SELECTION OF APPOINTEES FROM INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS TO
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1. Three Members of the Board of Governors shall be appointed jointly by the Secretary of the Air Force
and the National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol.

[FW]

Oh, BTW;  since there is no vice commander at this time, (Gen Courter is the interim commander)  The CAP/CS, Col Chitwood, assumes membership in the BOG until the Aug NB meeting, when new Commander and Vice Commander is elected.

[afgeo4]

How do y'all feel about addressing someone "LtCol", when you know they're really a "LtGen"?

I believe a retired military officer shall forever hold the rank he/she retired at and don't we have to call them according to their rank as per customs and courtesies?

I don't know if I could stomach calling them less than what they've earned.

[mikeylikey]

^ Agreed!  Once Senate approved, that title sticks with the person for life.  It used to be you had to be a Captain (officially placed on the scrolls) or higher to keep your title when you left the service.  However there is a clause that states an Officer no matter what rank can keep their title if they served during a decalred or undeclared war.  So that means an Officer can leave the service, and forever be known as Second Lieutenant Joe Blow. 

Back to the General thing......The Gentleman or Lady is a freaking General.  To not allow them to keep their title and wear their appropriate rank is foul, no matter how you look at it.  If the person in question was a LTG, and had on CAP Lt Col, I would absolutely address him as General.  Real Military Rank TRUMPS CAP rank each and every time.  Sorry folks!

[Cecil DP]

Michael,  JFYI.
This is from the CAP Constitution:
                          ARTICLE VIII-B
SELECTION OF APPOINTEES FROM INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS TO
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1. Three Members of the Board of Governors shall be appointed jointly by the Secretary of the Air Force
and the National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol.

And which master do they serve??

[FW]

Now, that is a good question.  They, as all the members of the BoG, are to serve the best interests of CAP.   After all, it is the Board of Governors who govern it.  The NEC and NB are advisory bodies to the BoG and have authority to make regulatory policy.  The BoG, however, has the authority to overrule the NEC or NB and change the constitution and bylaws.

How do y'all feel about addressing someone "LtCol", when you know they're really a "LtGen"?

I believe a retired military officer shall forever hold the rank he/she retired at and don't we have to call them according to their rank as per customs and courtesies?

I don't know if I could stomach calling them less than what they've earned.

I don't think anyone  would consider adressing a general as "Col" or "Hey You" for that matter.  But, if your about to, call me first.  I want a front row seat for the show.  

[JayT]

  Real Military Rank TRUMPS CAP rank each and every time.  Sorry folks!

Got a reg cite for that?

[mikeylikey]

  Real Military Rank TRUMPS CAP rank each and every time.  Sorry folks!

Got a reg cite for that?

Federal Law.  Common Sense.  US CODE.  Civics class.  Any and all CAP regulations realting to customs and courtesies.   

A Federal Military Officer is appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate.  Were you confirmed by the Senate when you became a CAP FO?  That's what I thought. 

Also, that is why they allow Military Officers (other than COLONEL and higher) to come into CAP at their Military Rank.  I don't think CAP Officers can enter the military at advanced rank based on CAP rank. 

(So I don't get bashed, yes I understand CAP and the Military are very different cultures, and rank between the two is not equal)

[Hawk200]

I don't think anyone  would consider adressing a general as "Col" or "Hey You" for that matter.  But, if your about to, call me first.  I want a front row seat for the show.  

I think you missed a few points along this thread. The discussion was concerning members that were former general grade officers, and the discontinuity of receiving only LTC (officially) in CAP.

[FW]

I'm sorry, my tongue was in my cheek when I posted the last comment. (Just couldn't help it.)
Now back to subject.
IMHO, CAP grade and the grade of any other service or related organization has absolutely nothing to do with each other.  There is no regulation saying a Capt. in the AF will become a Capt. in CAP, etc.  The regs just say it can happen.  As for generals or Cols., for that matter, they can stay without CAP grade if it bothers them.  Not 1 general officer (ret. or active) I've spoken with over the years never never had a problem with this issue (and that includes 1 4star).  So.  if it's not broke.....

[Hawk200]

I'm sorry, my tongue was in my cheek when I posted the last comment. (Just couldn't help it.)
Now back to subject.
IMHO, CAP grade and the grade of any other service or related organization has absolutely nothing to do with each other.  There is no regulation saying a Capt. in the AF will become a Capt. in CAP, etc.  The regs just say it can happen.  As for generals or Cols., for that matter, they can stay without CAP grade if it bothers them.  Not 1 general officer (ret. or active) I've spoken with over the years never never had a problem with this issue (and that includes 1 4star).  So.  if it's not broke.....

We each have our opinions on the subject. Since there is no actual guidance, then it is only opinion. If we had a former retired general (with more than two stars) take over National, I wouldn't see any issue with that person wearing a rank equivalent to what they last wore in the military. Then again, it's pretty unlikely such a thing would actually happen.

When it comes to the chain of command, having flag grades from former military service could be considered an issue in lower than National level posts. I've met a few former full birds in squadrons, and they didn't have any issue with it that they mentioned.

As for correlation, there is little, as our program is rather different than the military. However, CAP recognizes their contributions by permitting the rank carryover. Some may never have joined if their prior military rank was not recognized. I know for a fact that not all have an issue with it, as I have a member in my own unit that is a retired ArNG colonel (full bird, I think, but he's never been really specific), and is perfectly content in progressing through the CAP side. He's a good ol' boy that's more concerned with getting the job done.

[DNall]

I appreciate humble officers that are more concerned with the tactical job than being worried about grade. The original point was about capturing some of those higher ranking mil officers who aren't maybe as humble & who may or may not want to step back down to the Sq level. We were discussing bringing them in at the full mil grade with them assigned to an advisory Sq attached to BoG or NHQ & with the purpose of advocating for CAP within the military/political structure. Having that versus not having that is a no brainer. The price of letting them keep their grade is a small one for that gain & we shouldn't be so prideful to be unwilling to pay it. That's my opinion.

[Hawk200]

The price of letting them keep their grade is a small one for that gain & we shouldn't be so prideful to be unwilling to pay it.

This is tongue in cheek, but there is an irony to no monetary pay involved. Not like it comes out of the budget or anything. Whether we give a military officer 2LT or MGen, it's not like it comes out of our budget.

Beginning to think that there is no real harm to allowing it.

[DNall]

just pride. But, when paychecks consist of a lot of zeros with nothing in front, there tends to be a lot of false pride floating around. You wouldn't, in my experience, find people in the real mil acting like that. they respect pay & rank, but they respect getting the job done well a whole lot more. They aren't compensated in pride alone, not false pride in lieu of a paycheck anyway.

[FW]

they respect pay & rank, but they respect getting the job done well a whole lot more. They aren't compensated in pride alone, not false pride in lieu of a paycheck anyway.

That's what I'm talkn' about.

[afgeo4]

Now, that is a good question.  They, as all the members of the BoG, are to serve the best interests of CAP.   After all, it is the Board of Governors who govern it.  The NEC and NB are advisory bodies to the BoG and have authority to make regulatory policy.  The BoG, however, has the authority to overrule the NEC or NB and change the constitution and bylaws.

How do y'all feel about addressing someone "LtCol", when you know they're really a "LtGen"?

I believe a retired military officer shall forever hold the rank he/she retired at and don't we have to call them according to their rank as per customs and courtesies?

I don't know if I could stomach calling them less than what they've earned.

I don't think anyone  would consider adressing a general as "Col" or "Hey You" for that matter.  But, if your about to, call me first.  I want a front row seat for the show. 

Well... let's see... a CAP Colonel (full bird) or higher could address them as LtCol. It can also be said when calling out their name... as in on a list or to present an award or something like that. I understand that our grade isn't at all the same as "their" rank, but it kinda sorta is. We ARE the Air Force auxiliary, not some random non-profit.

[Dragoon]

The similarities are that we use the same insignia and titles.  That's about where it ends.

Their grade generally denotes level of responsibility and authority.

Our rank generally designates CAP staff training and/or special skills CAP needs.  Plus the highest grades designate service (or previous service) at the Corporate level.

Almost completely different criteria from our brethren.

(as an aside, we had a related issue with a former member who was a squadron commander.  Seems he had been a 0-5 in some foreign air force.  He was only a CAP captain but demanded that his people call him "Colonel."  I can understand his pride, but it really didn't help things any.  It also didn't help that he took no steps to complete any CAP PD so that he could actually earn CAP 0-5.)

I understand the value in stroking a General's ego if he can help us.  Heck, I understand the value in stroking a Staff Sergeant's ego if he can help us.  But I remain a fan of giving rank to the people in charge, not to the underlings who want the CAP grade but don't want to take on the responsiblities of appropriate CAP leadership and staff jobs.

Very soon I'll be one of those guys who's RM grade will have surpassed his CAP grade - probably forever.  But I'm cool with that.  Give the bennies to the guys who do the hard work.

Now, if a well connected General wanted to join CAP specifically to work as a liaison to the military, or the guard or something, then the stars would help.  But if he's just joining to fly our planes, or support his cadet grandson, there's really no need to give the Wing CC someone else to salute, IMHO.

[ddelaney103]

I don't think anyone  would consider adressing a general as "Col" or "Hey You" for that matter.  But, if your about to, call me first.  I want a front row seat for the show. 

I addressed an O-7 as "Senior Member."

One Wing Conference, they decided to reward Encampment Staff, one of which was a AF Brig Gen.  The General was a CAP member but never took CAP grade.  He either wore a blazer (with his star and "USAF Ret." on the nametag) or his AF uniform around CAP.

The orders, however, said "Senior Member X," so I called him up as "Senior Member."  Didn't get struck by lightning or anything...

[DNall]

Again, it's not the general officers we do have that either don't care or find their own ways to deal with it. It's the general officers we don't have & do need. It's a very small price to pay, especially when it's free, to get something worthwhile in return.

The similarities are that we use the same insignia and titles.  That's about where it ends.

Their grade generally denotes level of responsibility and authority.

Our rank generally designates CAP staff training and/or special skills CAP needs.  Plus the highest grades designate service (or previous service) at the Corporate level.

Almost completely different criteria from our brethren.

(as an aside, we had a related issue with a former member who was a squadron commander.  Seems he had been a 0-5 in some foreign air force.  He was only a CAP captain but demanded that his people call him "Colonel."  I can understand his pride, but it really didn't help things any.  It also didn't help that he took no steps to complete any CAP PD so that he could actually earn CAP 0-5.)

I understand the value in stroking a General's ego if he can help us.  Heck, I understand the value in stroking a Staff Sergeant's ego if he can help us.  But I remain a fan of giving rank to the people in charge, not to the underlings who want the CAP grade but don't want to take on the responsiblities of appropriate CAP leadership and staff jobs.

Very soon I'll be one of those guys who's RM grade will have surpassed his CAP grade - probably forever.  But I'm cool with that.  Give the bennies to the guys who do the hard work.

Now, if a well connected General wanted to join CAP specifically to work as a liaison to the military, or the guard or something, then the stars would help.  But if he's just joining to fly our planes, or support his cadet grandson, there's really no need to give the Wing CC someone else to salute, IMHO.

In practice, a lot of that is true. However, grade is supposed to equate to authority in CAP. You aren't supposed to put a Capt in charge of a Sq when there's a LtCol there. You aren't supposed to promote someone to a grade they aren't able to lead at, regardless if they've completed the minimum requirements listed in the reg. And, you are required to follow orders according to rank structure (which means grade outside an org chart) or your are supposed to face stiff disciplinary action according to regs.

Just because CAP doesn't do what it's supposed to be doing according to its own rules doesn't mean it's right to go along with the common practice.

[RiverAux]

However, grade is supposed to equate to authority in CAP. You aren't supposed to put a Capt in charge of a Sq when there's a LtCol there.

Who says?  Certainly not the regulations that apply to our organization. 

[Short Field]

Rank in the CAP is reflective of Professional Development and certain unique skills.

[ddelaney103]

Rank in the CAP is reflective of Professional Development and certain unique skills.

No, grade is simply a reflection of your perceived worth to CAP.

The higher you work your way up the CAP PD ladder, the more grade they figure you're worth.

If you bring a desired skill (pilot, A&P, doctor, RM officer) they're willing to give you advanced grade.

If you hold an important position, such as unit commander, they give you grade.

The two important things are: they don't give grade out the same way the RM gives it out and it means nothing in terms of who has authority in any given situation.

They do look the same, though.

[afgeo4]

Rank in the CAP is reflective of Professional Development and certain unique skills.

No, grade is simply a reflection of your perceived worth to CAP.

The higher you work your way up the CAP PD ladder, the more grade they figure you're worth.

If you bring a desired skill (pilot, A&P, doctor, RM officer) they're willing to give you advanced grade.

If you hold an important position, such as unit commander, they give you grade.

The two important things are: they don't give grade out the same way the RM gives it out and it means nothing in terms of who has authority in any given situation.

They do look the same, though.

They also sound the same, get treated the same way by custom, and they work to denote a person's seniority (most of the time) in the same way (yes, a Col is always more senior to a 1st Lt)

[ddelaney103]

Rank in the CAP is reflective of Professional Development and certain unique skills.

No, grade is simply a reflection of your perceived worth to CAP.

The higher you work your way up the CAP PD ladder, the more grade they figure you're worth.

If you bring a desired skill (pilot, A&P, doctor, RM officer) they're willing to give you advanced grade.

If you hold an important position, such as unit commander, they give you grade.

The two important things are: they don't give grade out the same way the RM gives it out and it means nothing in terms of who has authority in any given situation.

They do look the same, though.

They also sound the same, get treated the same way by custom, and they work to denote a person's seniority (most of the time) in the same way (yes, a Col is always more senior to a 1st Lt)

Oooh, "seniority"...and besides who gets in a car first and who walks on the right, what does "seniority" mean in CAP?

Two words:  AUTHORITY and RESPONSIBILITY.  Military grade has it - CAP grade doesn't.  That's why their grade is real and ours is costume jewelry.

If the 2nd Lt is the sqdn cc, she tells everyone else in her sqdn what to do, even if it's full of former wing commanders.  If they don't, she can bring them up on insubordination.  A Col acting insubordinate to a 2nd Lt?  That's messed up like a soup sandwich.

[mikeylikey]

The two important things are: they don't give grade out the same way the RM gives it out and it means nothing in terms of who has authority in any given situation.

Really?  In the Military, an Officer moves from 2nd Lt (2LT) to 1st Lt (1LT) simply because of "time served".  You have to have done something SO "jacked up" not to be promoted to 1st LT.  Now, when being promoted to Capt, then there are some "other requirements". 

I agree with you that CAP rank means nothing about authority.  It is positional authority.  I am a strong proponent to getting that change.  But that is not a popular idea, as most of our members I fear would never move up, as there would not be enough "slots" for everyone.

[afgeo4]

The two important things are: they don't give grade out the same way the RM gives it out and it means nothing in terms of who has authority in any given situation.

Really?  In the Military, an Officer moves from 2nd Lt (2LT) to 1st Lt (1LT) simply because of "time served".  You have to have done something SO "jacked up" not to be promoted to 1st LT.  Now, when being promoted to Capt, then there are some "other requirements". 

I agree with you that CAP rank means nothing about authority.  It is positional authority.  I am a strong proponent to getting that change.  But that is not a popular idea, as most of our members I fear would never move up, as there would not be enough "slots" for everyone.

I can't speak for all branches, but in the Air Force and Army, the requirements to move from O-1 to O-2 and from O-2 to O-3 are time in grade. USAF has 2 years for each promotion. Army now requires 18 months for at least combat arms MOS'. However, satisfactory performance at current grade and passing the PFT are requirements as well. Remember, all officers undergo regular evaluations and if those evaluations aren't passed, no promotion is authorized. That is considered a major problem for an officer because they are professionals, as in they're paid to be competent.

We have promotion standards as well. They also include professional development (CAP version of PME) and satisfactory performance. I would be much happier if we had SDAs for senior members too, but we don't, so what is "satisfactory" usually remains completely subjective and up to the commander. In fact, the commander doesn't have to write down any reason for denial of promotion. To me, that's unsatisfactory leadership, but that's what goes on. We aren't professionals.

Also, don't forget that our senior members don't receive proper leadership instruction. Instead, they receive operational and staff instruction. Aside from the SOS, which is an Air Force course, there is no clear cut leadership training. The SLS and CLC provide an overview of the organization. The UCC provides instruction on how to run a unit. AFIADL 13 provides a tiny chapter on extremely basic concepts of leadership, but no actual training in it. Higher PD courses provide training on doctrine, strategic planning, and responsible execution of CAP missions. I guess we assume that leadership will be learned by osmosis, through observing current commanders, but if none is taught to anyone then what can we learn by observation aside from lack of knowledge.

[Dragoon]

The discussion points on the problem.

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsiblity and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

No wonder we're as messed up as a soup sandwich, culture wise.

There is zero - ZERO authority in CAP based on officer grade - I've run this through several CAP legal officers.  It's all based on position, regardless of grade.

Until we reconcile this basic disconnect, the argument can will go round and round.


If we replaced USAF style grade with CAP specific grade, the problem goes away. 

      "No General, you don't get to be a CAP General, but neither does anyone else.  Here are you flight officer bars.  We'll spot you a couple of FO levels because of your value to us.  Feel free to keep your BG (ret) line in your signature when you think it will help CAP."

      Plus no arguments about "pulling rank" because it could be spelled out that there is no "rank" amongst the levels of CAP flight officers.

If we only gave out USAF style grade to those WITH authority and responsibility, the problem also goes away.

     "Sure General, you can wear CAP stars - if you're willing to work in a CAP GO position.  We've got an opening as a USAF liaison - interested?"

     (Of course, if we want grade to reflect authority and responsiblity, we'd have to find a way to remove the grade when someone takes a less important job - USAF doesn't do this, but USAF Wing Commanders also aren't allowed to take a follow on job as a squadron staff officer either!"

[Hawk200]

The discussion points on the problem.

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsiblity and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

No wonder we're as messed up as a soup sandwich, culture wise.

There is zero - ZERO authority in CAP based on officer grade - I've run this through several CAP legal officers.  It's all based on position, regardless of grade.

Until we reconcile this basic disconnect, the argument can will go round and round.


If we replaced USAF style grade with CAP specific grade, the problem goes away. 

      "No General, you don't get to be a CAP General, but neither does anyone else.  Here are you flight officer bars.  We'll spot you a couple of FO levels because of your value to us.  Feel free to keep your BG (ret) line in your signature when you think it will help CAP."

      Plus no arguments about "pulling rank" because it could be spelled out that there is no "rank" amongst the levels of CAP flight officers.

If we only gave out USAF style grade to those WITH authority and responsibility, the problem also goes away.

     "Sure General, you can wear CAP stars - if you're willing to work in a CAP GO position.  We've got an opening as a USAF liaison - interested?"

     (Of course, if we want grade to reflect authority and responsiblity, we'd have to find a way to remove the grade when someone takes a less important job - USAF doesn't do this, but USAF Wing Commanders also aren't allowed to take a follow on job as a squadron staff officer either!"

Replacing a military rank system with any other rank system does not eliminate the problem. It just dresses it up with different clothes.

Four FO stripes are higher than one. It's simple numbers. The guy with four has more of something than the person with one. Same issue, different terms.

You want to eliminate the rank issue? Eliminate the rank entirely, go to something like the old strips that had "Squadron staff", "Squadron Commander", "Group staff", "Group commander", etc. There's your rank problem solved. No rank in the way.

But creating "haves" and "have nots" with a position based system is a problem. There will be people that will never be allowed to have a command (in some cases that's a good thing, in other cases very bad). You can not tell me that it would work on a merit based system. No such system is infallible, or ever will be. Even a Utopia has issues.

People will leave if such a system is enacted. You can stand on a soapbox and announce that you're right all day long, but if you don't have anyone to accomplish your mission, you have failed.

The base problem is human nature. You cannot and will not take that out of the equation.

As far as authority, we can be professionals and obey those appointed over us, like we chose to do. Putting FO stripes on a person, and demanding their obedience because you have officer rank insignia when they don't isn't going to solve the problem.

Another issue to deal with. The military has mandatory retirements, CAP doesn't. Locking people into positions with no advancement when they don't have to leave is not going to solve anything. And some of our members have decided to do this for the long haul.

[mikeylikey]

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsibility and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

I think that was done to recruit members into CAP.  Making everyone an Officer makes them feel better about themselves. 

It may also have something to do with CAP Corporate taking total control of daily operations with little or no AF direct command when the organization was restructured to make sure the AF did not appoint the CAP Commander. 

Either way, we are where we are.  With the VSAF program, I think in a few years there may not even be any discussion of RANK/GRADE in CAP, as it will disappear completely.  Could that be a NHQ and AF move?  Sure!  What better way to get rid of rank than to create a program that has none!

[Dragoon]

I don't think it's quite as dour as you make it out to be.

Replacing a military rank system with any other rank system does not eliminate the problem. It just dresses it up with different clothes.

Four FO stripes are higher than one. It's simple numbers. The guy with four has more of something than the person with one. Same issue, different terms.

For FO stripes are MORE than one - not neccesarily HIGHER.  Folks expect military rank to denote authority.  But a CAP specific system can be anything we want it to be.  If we make it clear that FO grade is for training, then effectively we have introduced collar-based skills badges.  A little wonky, but not unworkable.

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

You want to eliminate the rank issue? Eliminate the rank entirely, go to something like the old strips that had "Squadron staff", "Squadron Commander", "Group staff", "Group commander", etc. There's your rank problem solved. No rank in the way.

Yup, that would work too.  No muss, no fuss.  the only downside is one less reward for completing PD.  We'd probably see PD progression decrease.  Not sure if that's really a big deal, though.  The "CAP specific grade" proposal is actually very close to eliminating grade - it just includes a minor bennie for completing training.

But creating "haves" and "have nots" with a position based system is a problem. There will be people that will never be allowed to have a command (in some cases that's a good thing, in other cases very bad). You can not tell me that it would work on a merit based system. No such system is infallible, or ever will be. Even a Utopia has issues.

People will leave if such a system is enacted. You can stand on a soapbox and announce that you're right all day long, but if you don't have anyone to accomplish your mission, you have failed.

Not sure what you mean by this.  If you mean "if we only reward the guys doing the work, people will quit," you're probably right.  On the other hand, the kind of folks who want all the reward without doing the hard work are not guys we really need. 

If we want the best leadership, we have to reward the best leadership.  As long as you can make 0-5 doing virtually nothing, why the heck volunteer for a tough Wing director or group CC job?

This is why, I think, so many of these jobs are vacant, or are filled by an unqualified guy because, frankly, no one better applied.  No reason - you can get all the bling without taking on any responsibility.  This is why so many squadron commander positions are filled by the guy who didn't take a step backward quickly enough.  :-)

As far as authority, we can be professionals and obey those appointed over us, like we chose to do. Putting FO stripes on a person, and demanding their obedience because you have officer rank insignia when they don't isn't going to solve the problem.

It may help.   Putting officer rank on the squadron commander because he's in charge makes perfect sense. It becomes an indicator of his authority.   As long as you take it off him if he leaves the job.  You could do the same thing with some kind of positional designator and rules to describe how you treat the guy wearing it.

Then it becomes a positional indicator. It denotes authority based on the job.  And it is removed when the need for that authority has passed.

Another issue to deal with. The military has mandatory retirements, CAP doesn't. Locking people into positions with no advancement when they don't have to leave is not going to solve anything. And some of our members have decided to do this for the long haul.

Not a problem.  Either solution (CAP specific grade or temporary military grade) works with this.

We all, in our CAP "careers" will move up and down the chain.  So if we eliminate permanent military grade, and either replace it with CAP grade (denoting no authority, but recognizing longevity) or temporary military grade or position insignia (denotes authority, but is based on current position) we move closer to a grade system that reflects how our workforce actually functions.

[Dragoon]

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsibility and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

I think that was done to recruit members into CAP.  Making everyone an Officer makes them feel better about themselves. 

It may also have something to do with CAP Corporate taking total control of daily operations with little or no AF direct command when the organization was restructured to make sure the AF did not appoint the CAP Commander. 

Either way, we are where we are.  With the VSAF program, I think in a few years there may not even be any discussion of RANK/GRADE in CAP, as it will disappear completely.  Could that be a NHQ and AF move?  Sure!  What better way to get rid of rank than to create a program that has none!

I do believe that if CAP moves into more USAF support, our USAF-style grade will become an increasing sore point.  I don't think it will be eliminated, but I think it very likely that we may go to all pin-on grade at some point so we can remove it when working side-by-side with the real military.  After all, by the military definition we aren't officers - we are volunteer USAF civilians.  An honorable title all by itself.  And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

[mikeylikey]

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

[ddelaney103]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

[Hawk200]

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

Being Army Aviation myself, I can tell you it's far different than anything else I've ever worked.

I have personally addressed LTC's by their first name, while in the helicopter, not to just be casual, but because everyone on that bird is responsible for it's survival, and I was instructed to do so. Addressing people by rank in that setting is a sure way to get chewed out. It's happened to me. I got over being stuck in the formal rank, last name mode after a great deal of time.

Most of the officers I fly with prefer that in the bird, in the after flight brief, and in casual settings. First names are the norm, not the exception in Army Aviation.  There are definitely settings in which it is not appropriate, but everyone pretty much knows when that is.

The reasons for it are very valid. A warrant that addresses you by first name is not being lax, it's just his culture to do so.

[Dragoon]

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

\

Very different breed.  Non-aviation generally filling warrants are filling leadership roles alongside EMs and officers. Aviation types are very different.  And within their world (which is much closer to the CAP world than artillerY) it works out just fine.

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

Nope, no requirement to wear the CAC card visibly throughout USAF or the Army.  Pentagon badges, for example don't list grade at all.

Their subordinates know who "outranks whom" because of their position.  Not pay grade.

[Dragoon]

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

Being Army Aviation myself, I can tell you it's far different than anything else I've ever worked.

I have personally addressed LTC's by their first name, while in the helicopter, not to just be casual, but because everyone on that bird is responsible for it's survival, and I was instructed to do so. Addressing people by rank in that setting is a sure way to get chewed out. It's happened to me. I got over being stuck in the formal rank, last name mode after a great deal of time.

Most of the officers I fly with prefer that in the bird, in the after flight brief, and in casual settings. First names are the norm, not the exception in Army Aviation.  There are definitely settings in which it is not appropriate, but everyone pretty much knows when that is.

The reasons for it are very valid. A warrant that addresses you by first name is not being lax, it's just his culture to do so.

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

[ddelaney103]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Precisely.

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Decoupling RM jewelery from our PD structure will solve a bunch of problems by taking us out of their game.  We'll be comparing Apples to Oranges instead of Apples to "Oranges that look like Apples."

[Hawk200]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It's not warrrant culture, it's Army Aviation culture. I address both warrants and commisioned by first name during flight, in the after brief, and the casual situations I mentioned. Most of the time when I call them by rank, they tell me "Just call me John. We're not too formal here."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

The warrant culture is not one of "less training", the Aviation culture is just different. Flight training is almost 18 months, and that does not incluede the WO course, or commisioning courses. If anything, it's far more training than others.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Presented in this manner, the concept has merit. Doesn't cover the upper levels of management, but it is limited to a five step system that is currently the culture of the general CAP membership. Will have to give this one further thought.

If full officer ranks were retained for command levels, I would consider allowing those having held prior command positions to retain their rank. But there would have to be a few requirements for it, not just "been there, done that". If a person made no effort to command, a warrant bracket would be fine, and the ones having held command would maintain the rank they worked for.

Maybe permit a person to revert to their previous warrant rank and advance in that bracket, or else maintain their command rank permanently. The only officer side advancement would be to move up to a position that is higher.

Just a few thoughts. Bouncing stuff back and forth could actually result in a workable system.

[Hawk200]

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Tell a retired major that you won't award an equivalent rank, and I'll bet money that you won't get him.

It's actually an issue though. How do we deal with both current and former military officers?

Let's not bother with the "Well, if they don't accept it, we don't need them" argument. It's an argument that is completely incompatible with the concept of recruiting in the first place. We're definitely not in a position to be turning away people that are well qualified, and would be an asset to us.

[ddelaney103]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It's not warrrant culture, it's Army Aviation culture. I address both warrants and commisioned by first name during flight, in the after brief, and the casual situations I mentioned. Most of the time when I call them by rank, they tell me "Just call me John. We're not too formal here."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

The warrant culture is not one of "less training", the Aviation culture is just different. Flight training is almost 18 months, and that does not incluede the WO course, or commisioning courses. If anything, it's far more training than others.

The training he's talking about here is of the "military customs" variety.  If we settled on a "first names except for the "commissioned" officers, things would go a lot smoother.  Looking at Army Aviation, it doesn't seem to harm their professionalism any.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Presented in this manner, the concept has merit. Doesn't cover the upper levels of management, but it is limited to a five step system that is currently the culture of the general CAP membership. Will have to give this one further thought.

If full officer ranks were retained for command levels, I would consider allowing those having held prior command positions to retain their rank. But there would have to be a few requirements for it, not just "been there, done that". If a person made no effort to command, a warrant bracket would be fine, and the ones having held command would maintain the rank they worked for.

Maybe permit a person to revert to their previous warrant rank and advance in that bracket, or else maintain their command rank permanently. The only officer side advancement would be to move up to a position that is higher.

Just a few thoughts. Bouncing stuff back and forth could actually result in a workable system.

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

[Hawk200]

The training he's talking about here is of the "military customs" variety.  If we settled on a "first names except for the "commissioned" officers, things would go a lot smoother.  Looking at Army Aviation, it doesn't seem to harm their professionalism any.

Aviation comissioned and warrants get the same training in C&C as everyone else. They've gone through the WOC, or some type of OCS (or similar) commissioning school. And in flight, first names includes comissioned officers.

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

Non concur?

[ddelaney103]

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Tell a retired major that you won't award an equivalent rank, and I'll bet money that you won't get him.

It's actually an issue though. How do we deal with both current and former military officers?

Let's not bother with the "Well, if they don't accept it, we don't need them" argument. It's an argument that is completely incompatible with the concept of recruiting in the first place. We're definitely not in a position to be turning away people that are well qualified, and would be an asset to us.

If you explain that to wear Major grade you have to be doing a Major's work, they'll probably understand.  If you give them advanced CAP grade like every other O-4 who comes in it should be enough.  They wouldn't expect to become Majors in the local VFD, would they?

CAP grade is different from RM grade, or at least everyone keeps telling me.

[ddelaney103]

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

Non concur?

Don't agree - when you leave the position you should take off the grade.  Otherwise, people will work the system to get the grade and keep it forever.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Better idea... unless someone already said this...

LET THE RETIRED GENERALS KEEP WEARING THE AIR FORCE UNIFORM. They're CAP members, but we defer to their "real military" grade... and on their CAP ID cards, they say, for instance "Lt Gen USAF Ret".

They keep their rank and are recognized as such... and they're members of CAP, as well.

Or something like that.

[mikeylikey]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

What?!?!  ?  You get one and MUST register a PIN Number with it.  IT does have your grade on it (at least the ones I have seen walking around EVERYWHERE).  Most people refer to the "CAC" as a "CAC Card".  I see Civilians stick the freaking cards into readers to access their networks, turn on the webmail, and do everything but buy them a cup of coffee!  I may have been away from the normal routine for a while now (ROTC LAND), but I am pretty sure it is the same today as it was last year.  I have not seen those new Cards that were to be introduced yet, but did notice changes to the current CAC like the removal of "Active Duty" "Reserve" etc. from the front of the one I was just issued 6 months ago.  

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

Did you "miss" the whole cultural shift in the Army that started two years ago?  The Civilian Corps has taken a huge step.  They even have their own Creed now.

The last time I looked, Civilians were in charge of the DOD, and the Uniformed Services of THIS COUNTRY.  I was being overly simplistic if you missed it........I wanted to get across, that Soldiers who work for a Civilian "know who their boss is".  Heck,  Army just published new guidelines for Civilians that oversee both Officer and Enlisted personell on how they are to do evaluations.  

[ddelaney103]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

What?!?!  ?  You get one and MUST register a PIN Number with it.  IT does have your grade on it (at least the ones I have seen walking around EVERYWHERE).  Most people refer to the "CAC" as a "CAC Card".  I see Civilians stick the freaking cards into readers to access their networks, turn on the webmail, and do everything but buy them a cup of coffee!  I may have been away from the normal routine for a while now (ROTC LAND), but I am pretty sure it is the same today as it was last year.  I have not seen those new Cards that were to be introduced yet, but did notice changes to the current CAC like the removal of "Active Duty" "Reserve" etc. from the front of the one I was just issued 6 months ago.  

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

Did you "miss" the whole cultural shift in the Army that started two years ago?  The Civilian Corps has taken a huge step.  They even have their own Creed now.

The last time I looked, Civilians were in charge of the DOD, and the Uniformed Services of THIS COUNTRY.  I was being overly simplistic if you missed it........I wanted to get across, that Soldiers who work for a Civilian "know who their boss is".  Heck,  Army just published new guidelines for Civilians that oversee both Officer and Enlisted personell on how they are to do evaluations.  

Look the "Department of Redundancy Department" says you do not call them "Common Access Card (CAC) cards" or "Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) machines" or "Personal ID Number (PIN) numbers," OK?

Also, I checked my civilian CAC (twice) and there is no pay grade on it, front or back.  A few CAC's for civilians who deploy into combat zones have their pay grade on the front, but they are the execption.  Examples (small, hard to see examples, mind) can be seen at:

https://www.cac.mil/Home.do

Finally, I don't care if they give the Civilian Corps their own bloody theme song,  they do not have command authority.  Can they be in charge of military members?  Sure - but they cannot simply "take charge" of military members based on their "authority" as GS-13's.

Getting back to topic.  CAP can do it's job w/o grade because they do their job despite grade.  We're closer to civilians than anything else.  We obey others based on their position (commander, project officer, IC) not based on their grade.  Wearing grade just muddies the waters when dealing with those who equate the oak leaves or bars with inherant authority.

[mikeylikey]

redacted

Can't argue without getting further off topic!

So are we all in agreement, Generals should be allowed in CAP, but made to start out as a FO, then if they have a command slot, we can award them a comparable rank, then take it away when they move onto another job?  Or should we allow them all in, and just let them wear their AF/Army/Navy/MC uniforms with the stars on them?

I got it, how about we make every Senior Member one of the General Officer Ranks, that way everyone feels better about themselves.  (See what I did, took the Flight Officer propostion, but made it General Officer Stars instead).  I am a genius!

[ZigZag911]

Somehow this drifted into yet another discussion about grade, rank & authority ( or lack of it in CAP)....all valid subjects, always good to get a rise (or a laugh!) out  of someone....but not the topic of this thread.

If anyone has anymore to offer on the topic at hand -- how to integrate retired general officers into CAP retaining their grade earned in the Real Military -- then speak now....otherwise, moderators, perhaps it's time to shut this one down!

[RiverAux]

So are we all in agreement, Generals should be allowed in CAP, but made to start out as a FO, then if they have a command slot, we can award them a comparable rank, then take it away when they move onto another job?  Or should we allow them all in, and just let them wear their AF/Army/Navy/MC uniforms with the stars on them?

Or we could just use the current system and give them Lt. Col. rank upon joining -- the highest rank allowed. 

[ddelaney103]

Look, if someone is going to join CAP, they should wear a CAP uniform.  If a General wants come come talk in his old uniform he's allowed, but he doesn't have to be in CAP.

Telling Peter Pace, "sure, you can be a 4 star General in CAP" throws out the window any pretense of grade being anything but bling to hand out to members to get their time and money.

I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you need to figure out what CAP wants out of grade before you can decide who can have what.

[MIKE]

otherwise, moderators, perhaps it's time to shut this one down!

Agreed.