Senior member Professional Development/Grade advancement

[pixelwonk]

Here's my perception of the SM program:

There is a need within the organization for adult leaders. Officers, if you will.

Members need to be validated for duty performance and professional development accomplishments.


Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

CAP company and field officer grades (minus Colonel) do not hold the weight of rank (authority) behind it; therefore it is inherently meaningless in a command structure, which is what we operate under.

AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.



OK, now here's what would happen in my personal CAP Shang-gri-la:

• new members are without grade for one full year.


• Each TIG requirement is extended by one year for company grades, two years for field grades.


• Member's grades are restructured: 2Lt becomes WO-1, lLT becomes CWO-2, all the way to LtCol becoming Chief Warrant Officer Five. Grade insignia is identical to the Army's, except for the color blue replacing black. The reason for this is to be familiar enough, but remain distinctive. If CAP-USAF balks at the WO grade because it's not parallel with the AF, then rename it Flight Officer, which is completely distinctive to the USAF-Aux. (Army Air Forces used that rank before Warrants)


• Prior service (AD or Res) members would come in at a WO grade commensurate with their AD grade as outlined in the previous bullet. These PS members coming in for the express purpose of serving in command positions will retain their AD grade, up to LtCol, as is current policy.  NCOs who want to stay that way can remain NCOs.


• Command positions have an actual specialty track, focusing heavily on people management with requirements, study guide, etc... typical of any other specialty track. 


• Those who aspire to command must be at minimum WO-2. Upon entering the command Specialty Track outlined above will be appointed the temporary grade of Capt for Flights, (DCOC or DCOS as well) Major for Sqdns, and Lt Col for Groups, Wing Vice Commanders and/or Chiefs of Staff. The member is encouraged to complete the specialty track requirements for each level in order for the grade to become permanent. If not completed, The grade will revert to it's WO equivalent as outlined in the 3rd bullet point.


• Grade advancement for Wing Commanders and above shall remain consistent with current policy.

Am I way off in outer space or does this make sense?
I also attached a rendering of WO grades for those who aren't familiar with them.

[attachment deleted by admin- older than one year]

[arajca]

Sounds similar to something that was discussed on CadetStuff before the Great Data Dump of 2004. I actually developed a chart and grade insignia for the "new" senior program.

I have them in Word doc's, but I don't have a way to host the files for all to see.

[pixelwonk]

I dunno.  I remember talking about it somewhat on the old auxiliary power forum.  Unfortunately, archives aren't available. 

I'll host em if you want to email them to me, unless Jerry would permit me to attach them here on CAP-Talk?

[SarDragon]

[redacted] Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

But Squadron Commanders have presumably been through at least SLS, and are also required to attend the Unit Commander's Course.

[redacted] AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.

Only until you explain it to them. That's not usually very hard.

[Major_Chuck]

I remember the discussion we had about it on the old Auxiliary Power forum.  We all pretty much agreed that something like this was needed but the powers to be did not.
Very similiar to creating a NCO progression for Senior Members.

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

I dunno.  I remember talking about it somewhat on the old auxiliary power forum.  Unfortunately, archives aren't available. 

I'll host em if you want to email them to me, unless Jerry would permit me to attach them here on CAP-Talk?

[arajca]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

I'd change some of the training requirements:
Level I - CPPT + SLS + AFIADL 13 + History of CAP + 1 yr TIG
Level II - Tech rating + CLC or UCC + attend 1 wing, region, or national conference + 2 year TIG
Level III - Senior rating + SOS + UCC or CLC (whichever not attended) + attend 1 additional conference + 3 yr TIG + Staff SLS/wing conference or instruct CPPT & History of CAP class
Level IV - Master rating + RSC + AWC + 4 yr TIG + Staff CLC/UCC or direct SLS + external Presentation + complete AEPSM
Level V - NSC + ACSC + 5 yr TIG + Staff RSC/NSC or direct CLC/UCC + instruct CPPT & History of CAP class

Obviously, you'd complete the levels in order, i.e. Level I is a prerequisite for Level II, and so on.
SOS, AWC, ACSC are completed via correspondence. Keep the military training replacements as currently listed in CAPR 50-17.
Throw out the Orientation course. The only part that is semi-decent is the history of CAP. Make that a separate class and throw out the rest. Add a uniform component to SLS (which gets renamed CAP Flight Officer Course).

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

[pixelwonk]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

That's cool, I'm not married to the #'s, myself... I was going for familiarity (yet distinctive)

[CAPSGT]

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

I think you're more likely to find that requiring the DOD PME courses is more likely to sink a proposal like this.  Generally people who take those are getting paid to do so.  It's a massive amount of material to cover, especially by correspondence.  I think you'd find yourself with people basically stagnating at level 2.  The only ones who would progress past it are those who had to take SOS, AWC, and ACSC in the military (or as a DOD civilian employee), and maybe a handfull of others across the country.

Despite having spent the last 8.5 years getting as much training as I can in/for CAP, that part would be enough to make me throw in the towel.

[arajca]

The quote you cited was in reply to Major_Chuck's post. A couple years ago, three proposals were sent to the NB - a CAP Flight Officer program, a Warrant Officer program, and an NCO program. All three were written - from what I saw in the minutes - identical except for changing the words "Flight Officer", "Warrant Officer", and "NCO". Since they were all competing and doing the same thing, none were approved.

If the DoD courses were dropped for my idea, I wouldn't be hurt. I was trying use existing programs to help provide leadership training to higher level members - where it is needed.

[CAPSGT]

wow, it has been a couple years, hasn't it?  It seems like just yesterday I was sitting in a wing staff meeting hearing about those.

I agree that the DOD courses are certainly a valuable resource.  I just try to remember that it is a volunteer organization and that we can really only ask so much of our volunteers if we want to retain them.

[Pylon]

Here's my perception of the SM program:

There is a need within the organization for adult leaders. Officers, if you will.

Members need to be validated for duty performance and professional development accomplishments.


Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

CAP company and field officer grades (minus Colonel) do not hold the weight of rank (authority) behind it; therefore it is inherently meaningless in a command structure, which is what we operate under.

AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.



OK, now here's what would happen in my personal CAP Shang-gri-la:

• new members are without grade for one full year.


• Each TIG requirement is extended by one year for company grades, two years for field grades.


• Member's grades are restructured: 2Lt becomes WO-1, lLT becomes CWO-2, all the way to LtCol becoming Chief Warrant Officer Five. Grade insignia is identical to the Army's, except for the color blue replacing black. The reason for this is to be familiar enough, but remain distinctive. If CAP-USAF balks at the WO grade because it's not parallel with the AF, then rename it Flight Officer, which is completely distinctive to the USAF-Aux. (Army Air Forces used that rank before Warrants)


• Prior service (AD or Res) members would come in at a WO grade commensurate with their AD grade as outlined in the previous bullet. These PS members coming in for the express purpose of serving in command positions will retain their AD grade, up to LtCol, as is current policy.  NCOs who want to stay that way can remain NCOs.


• Command positions have an actual specialty track, focusing heavily on people management with requirements, study guide, etc... typical of any other specialty track. 


• Those who aspire to command must be at minimum WO-2. Upon entering the command Specialty Track outlined above will be appointed the temporary grade of Capt for Flights, (DCOC or DCOS as well) Major for Sqdns, and Lt Col for Groups, Wing Vice Commanders and/or Chiefs of Staff. The member is encouraged to complete the specialty track requirements for each level in order for the grade to become permanent. If not completed, The grade will revert to it's WO equivalent as outlined in the 3rd bullet point.


• Grade advancement for Wing Commanders and above shall remain consistent with current policy.

Am I way off in outer space or does this make sense?
I also attached a rendering of WO grades for those who aren't familiar with them.

It's an interesting idea, but you still have the issue of what do former commanders do and how it can become "weird" (especially from an AD/USAF perspective); let's say you have a commander under your proposal who serves as Group Cmdr, or Wing Cmdr.  They attain their officer rank of Lt. Col or Col., finish their Cmdr. specialty track, finish their term of office, and retain their rank.  Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

[arajca]

The CAP Professional Development Committee has posted the minutes of their 20 March meeting online http://level2.cap.gov/documents/PD_Committee_Minutes_2005_03.pdf. They actually acknowledged something needs to be done about professional development. There isn't a whole lot of information about what they discussed, but it is a start.

[arajca]

 
It's an interesting idea, but you still have the issue of what do former commanders do and how it can become "weird" (especially from an AD/USAF perspective); let's say you have a commander under your proposal who serves as Group Cmdr, or Wing Cmdr.  They attain their officer rank of Lt. Col or Col., finish their Cmdr. specialty track, finish their term of office, and retain their rank.  Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

If the staff grades/grades are only authorized while in office, that becomes a non-issue. As was suggested on CS, allow members to wear the highest officer grade they earned at social functions, but not at the unit. Officer grades are temporary. The permenant grade is the FO/WO grade.

Here is roughly the idea:

If your echelon is	And your position title is	And your specialty track rating is	And/or your PD Level is	Then your officer grade is
Squadron	Commander	Any or none	Level 1	Capt
		Technician or higher	Level 2 or higher	Major
	Deputy Commander	None	Level 1	1st Lt
		Technician or higher	Level 1 or higher	Capt
	Any staff officer	None or any unrelated	Level 1 or higher	2nd Lt
		Technician or higher (related)	Level 1 or higher	1st Lt
	Assistant to a staff officer	None or unrelated	None	None
		Any	Level 1 or higher	2d Lt
Group	Commander	Any	Level 1 or 2	Major
		Senior or higher	Level 2 or higher	Lt Col
	Deputy Commander	Any	Level 1 or 2	Capt
		Senior or higher	Level 2 or higher	Major
	Any staff officer	Technician (related) or any unrelated	Level 1	1st Lt
		Senior or higher (related)	Level 2 or higher	Capt
	Assistant/Deputy to staff officer	Technician (related) or any unrelated	Level 1	2d Lt
		Senior or higher	Level 2 of higher	1st Lt

etc. I think you can see the pattern. If you want the whole chart, pm me with your email.

[cmoore]

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

As a "Senior Member" I'll second that.  I also dislike the term "Senior Member Without Grade."
I don't expect to be an officer from day one, but how about "Airman" or something like that?

[pixelwonk]

Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

Yes, It may happen, but at only a fraction of what it does now.  The reason for this is because s'members need to complete the specialty track rating commensurate with their grade for their grade to become permanent.  Without this, they would revert to their WO grade.

[arajca]

One solution would be for the offier grade to authorized only while filling a position for which it is authorized. When you step down - or up - your change grade appropriately. If you are no longer on staff, you revert to your permenant grade - FO or WO grade. You may wear your highest offier grade at social situations (banquets, high level award ceremonies, etc.), but not at regular meeting and activities.

[DeputyDog]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

I'd change some of the training requirements:
Level I - CPPT + SLS + AFIADL 13 + History of CAP + 1 yr TIG
Level II - Tech rating + CLC or UCC + attend 1 wing, region, or national conference + 2 year TIG
Level III - Senior rating + SOS + UCC or CLC (whichever not attended) + attend 1 additional conference + 3 yr TIG + Staff SLS/wing conference or instruct CPPT & History of CAP class
Level IV - Master rating + RSC + AWC + 4 yr TIG + Staff CLC/UCC or direct SLS + external Presentation + complete AEPSM
Level V - NSC + ACSC + 5 yr TIG + Staff RSC/NSC or direct CLC/UCC + instruct CPPT & History of CAP class

Obviously, you'd complete the levels in order, i.e. Level I is a prerequisite for Level II, and so on.
SOS, AWC, ACSC are completed via correspondence. Keep the military training replacements as currently listed in CAPR 50-17.
Throw out the Orientation course. The only part that is semi-decent is the history of CAP. Make that a separate class and throw out the rest. Add a uniform component to SLS (which gets renamed CAP Flight Officer Course).

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

The problem I see with the Flight Officer grade structure and the training requirements scheme is that in order to take SOS, you have to be a Captain, for ACSC you have to be a Major and for AWC you have to be a Lieutenant Colonel (or their civilian equivalents).

In a discussion I had with a Region PDO, he explained that a CAP Flight Officer grade could be considered as something akin to a "Third Lieutenant".

[arajca]

That particular proposal has been disgarded some time ago. It was discussed in the early stages of ideas, and other points against it were brought up.

[Bluelakes 13]

If I were CAP god for a day, the first change I would do is dump all the grades (and USAF uniforms) and implement a system similar to the Coast Guard Aux. 

There would be a plethora of learning opportunities/courses/classes available depending on the POSITION someone holds at the unit/wing/region level. 

The other change I would make is commanders being elected by those they command - but that's another thread...

[DeputyDog]

If I were CAP god for a day, the first change I would do is dump all the grades (and USAF uniforms) and implement a system similar to the Coast Guard Aux. 

There would be a plethora of learning opportunities/courses/classes available depending on the POSITION someone holds at the unit/wing/region level. 

The other change I would make is commanders being elected by those they command - but that's another thread...

In my view, the Coast Guard Auxiliary system is confusing (I am not flaming). The Coast Guard is better able to manage their Auxiliary due to its size. I imagine with the Air Force it would be a bit tricker to base everything on position.
Take for example the Squadron Officer School (a very valuable resource that the Civil Air Patrol is permitted to utilize). One must be a Captain in order to enroll in the SOS. How do you determine what position is equivalent to a Captain? Is a "Squadron Staff Officer" or a "Group Staff Officer" equivalent to that?
Given the size of the Air Force and the numerous other things that the Air University has to do, I imagine it would be a severe annoyance for the Air Force to deal with that. It is far simpler for someone to see Captain's bars, and say they are a Captain (although not commissioned).
Electing officers is not a bad idea. Isn't that how the volunteer units during the Civil War selected their NCOs and officers? How does that play out in the Coast Guard Auxiliary? Any problems involved with that?

[ncc1912]

My personal opinion is that the rank structure is the least of our worries when it comes the "senior"/professional development program.  CAP would benefit more from a revamp in the training than a change in the rank structure.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of utilizing the ranks of flight officer, but only as a precursor to officer ranks.  It is only fair considering CAP officers do not earn a commission.  They could be used similar to the rank of midshipman that the Navy used to use before an officer became a lieutenant or (eventually) an ensign.  Also, members joining with a Bachelor's or higher and applying for a position in their area of study could be given advance progression.

Our new seniors should progress through the FO ranks for a period of 12-18 months prior to becoming a second lieutenant.  There progression should be based on advancements and achievements in their specialty track until they've earned a technician rating and professional development.  When complete they can earn their "commission" as a second lieutenant in the CAP.

We should be using formal correspondence/in-residence courses to train our seniors in their respective specialty tracks.  Wing and Region staff in specialty track positions should be serving as 'functional managers' writing the curriculum for these courses.  This way, everyone in the wing gets the same information and training and soon there will be no excuses for why "we don't do it that way in my unit."

As far as the rank not being commensurate with the job, perhaps we can tag rank restrictions to staff and command positions, another possibility, is tie the rank of the commander directly to the number of members he/she commands.  Staff officers will be locked into specific ranks:  lieutenants/captains for squadrons and majors/lieutenant colonel/colonels for wings, all depending on size.

If you think about it, a group commander in California can command as many members as the wing commander of Delaware, so, in my eyes, that group commander is just as entitled to the rank of colonel as the wing commander of Delaware.  The same would hold true for the wing commander of California.  Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board and/or National Executive Committee.

The National Commander's rank should depend on the number of members in CAP and be reviewed annually by the Air Force at the beginning of the fiscal year.  He/She should not be demoted based on membership numbers, but promotion would be possible.

I would set the command thresholds as follows:
RANK                            MEMBERSHIP
Second Lieutenant         5 or less
First Lieutenant             5 - 15
Captain                        15 - 45
Major                           45 - 75
Lieutenant Colonel          75 - 200
Colonel                         200 - 1000
Brigadier General            1000 - 20000
Major General                20000 - 30000
Lieutenant General         30000 - 50000
General                        50000 or more

Vice commanders would be the rank of the highest rank held by a subordinate commander.

Pilots (provided no other staff position held) would be promoted to second lieutenant when they earn their wings (form 5 check ride, etc.) and based on hours after that.

Observers (provided no other staff position held) would be promoted to second lieutenant when they earn their wings and based on hours after that.

Staff officers would be promoted based on skill level as long as their command level warrents it.  Therefore, if you start out as second lieutenant with a technician rating at a squadron and never accept a position at group or wing in the same specialty track commensurate with your skill level (provided you advance through your specialty) don't count on being promoted unless your unit gets substantially larger.

Doctors, Lawyers, Chaplains, Accountants, etc. would need professional development training and a course in their specialty track duties and applicable regulations, but should come in as no less than captain upon completion.

Prior service members' military knowledge is invaluable and should be acknowledged through the award of the rank they hold/last held.  These individuals should be strongly considered for command/staff positions commensurate with their rank, but not required to take on these duties to retain their rank.  ...They've served their time!

You are going to have seniors who join and just want to be grunts.  :clap:  To them, I say, "thank you."  CAP needs enlisted.  They still need specialty track training and professional development courses, but they will probably never leave the squadron level.  They should be promoted based on time-in-service through SrA (technician) and a combination of time-in-service, time-in-grade, and specialty track/professional development promotion testing from SSgt through MSgt.  SMSgts and CMSgts will be promoted by the wing commander or designee only.

With all this, I think that the AD and Reservists would better be able to relate to our rank structure and we would avoid a lot of confusion.

[dwb]

Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board

Which is why even the Commander of Rhode Island Wing is a Colonel.  The advanced grade afforded to commanders has to do with the responsibilities at their echelon, rather than the raw number of members under their command.

I have a problem tying grade to numbers for two reasons.  First, a senior member will probably serve at a minimum of 2-3 echelons, and possibly numerous units over a wide geographic area, during their time in CAP.  Trying to adjust their grade accordingly gets confusing.  Also, you're building an inherent bias toward more heavily populated areas.  A senior member making great things happen in Wyoming will still never make the grade that a mediocre New York City Group Commander can make.  Trying to create some sort of "per capita" adjustment on the number requirements is just silly.

While the current culture and regulations surrounding senior member promotions and professional development isn't perfect, it's also not so broken as to require a complete overhaul.  Grade is one of the few perks that can be given to members that chip in, complete their training, and serve in command and staff positions.   I don't want to remove that.

[ncc1912]

Regardless of rank, wing commanders are still the only corporate officer in the wing and are voting members of the National Board

Trying to create some sort of "per capita" adjustment on the number requirements is just silly.

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would us it in a war.   

[dwb]

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

I'm hesitant to pull out the "we're not the Air Force" card here, but it is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.  CAP is organized strictly by geographic area, and the special appointment grades reflect that (Wing/Region = Col, Group = Maj, Squadron = 1st Lt / Capt).  Since Wing CCs provide direct governance for the organization, they should be afforded a rank commensurate with that responsibility.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Well, I meant that some people will move between squadrons, groups, and wings during their tenure in CAP.  I started in a squadron, moved to group, moved to a different squadron, back to group, I'm sure I'll be at wing someday, and probably right back in a squadron, etc.  Tying my grade to the echelon I'm at means I'll be bouncing up and down over the years (and it will detach my grade from the professional development I've completed, which I consider a disadvantage).

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

Yes, but tying grade directly to size of command creates a rank ceiling for sparsely populated areas.  Hence the Wyoming example; WYWG will never have the number of members NYC or Long Island Group can potentially have.  They just can't.  It's physically impossible.  That was my point.

So you can have a great WYWG senior member that completes Level V and runs the biggest squadron in the Wing and does a million other things, and still, he can only make Captain at best.  Why put that restriction on him?

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would use it in a war.   

Now you're really comparing apples and oranges.

I have no problem with making grade correspond to actual training received, or the contribution a member makes to the organization.  I just don't think it should be tied to how many people happen to live in your area.

[ZigZag911]

First, a  possible solution to the current debate...rather than link the grade to raw numbers of members, why not base it on membership as percentage of area population.

For instance, in a town of 1000 people, a 50 member unit would be a hefty 5% of the population....whereas in a town of 10000, it would be 0.5%.

I'll leave the breakdown of ranks to you folks!

[ncc1912]

If that is the case, then the Air Force should make all its wing commanders colonels, regardless of the size of their wing or their mission.

I'm hesitant to pull out the "we're not the Air Force" card here, but it is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.  CAP is organized strictly by geographic area, and the special appointment grades reflect that (Wing/Region = Col, Group = Maj, Squadron = 1st Lt / Capt).  Since Wing CCs provide direct governance for the organization, they should be afforded a rank commensurate with that responsibility.

Why not pull the "we're not the Air Force" card?  It is used just as frequently and conveniently as our designation as the USAF Auxiliary, but that is not my point. 

To use an analogy, the districts of the US House of Representatives are geographically organized, as well.  In addition to their geographical location, though, they are also demographically organized based on population.

Also, commensurate is defined as "having a common measure" or "corresponding in size or degree or extent."  Currently, what is the common measure?  It isn't geographical size.  It isn't membership numbers or even state population.  The only thing that is in common is the state name in every wing commander's title.

Their governance, or authority, if you will, is derived from the position not the rank.  Besides, under this fictional system there would still be no wing commanders of a rank less than colonel unless RI happens to slip below 200, but even then, the commander wouldn't be demoted... The next commander would just be a lieutenant colonel.

Firstly, Looking at the numbers, there is very little fluctuation in rank across the board in membership numbers:  A commander of a group in IL of over 200 members could move to IN and command a wing of 500 members, then get appointed to GLR/CC and command a region of 3000 and only be promoted once.  That isn't very confusing to me.

Well, I meant that some people will move between squadrons, groups, and wings during their tenure in CAP.  I started in a squadron, moved to group, moved to a different squadron, back to group, I'm sure I'll be at wing someday, and probably right back in a squadron, etc.  Tying my grade to the echelon I'm at means I'll be bouncing up and down over the years (and it will detach my grade from the professional development I've completed, which I consider a disadvantage).

First, I don't see the "disadvantage," but, secondly, your argument is based on the assumption that you would be demoted once you have been promoted ignoring the statment in the original post, "He/She should not be demoted based on membership numbers, but promotion would be possible."

Secondly, promotions currently are not awarded on what "great things" we make happen, so there is no effect based on that.

Yes, but tying grade directly to size of command creates a rank ceiling for sparsely populated areas.  Hence the Wyoming example; WYWG will never have the number of members NYC or Long Island Group can potentially have.  They just can't.  It's physically impossible.  That was my point.

So you can have a great WYWG senior member that completes Level V and runs the biggest squadron in the Wing and does a million other things, and still, he can only make Captain at best.  Why put that restriction on him?

Yes, it could potentially create a ceiling, but that is dependant solely on the recruiting effors in the wing.

Based on an national average of 1 member for every five thousand citizens, Wyoming should only have about 100 members.  Instead they have just short of 300, similar to VT and RI.  ... You were talking about apples and oranges?

And remember:  the "restriction" is self-imposed if this were the system in which we operated.

The current system has not been updated in quite some time and though, I agree, that it isn't necessarily broke, neither is the U.S.S. Constitution, but I don't think that the US Navy would use it in a war.   

Now you're really comparing apples and oranges.

I have no problem with making grade correspond to actual training received, or the contribution a member makes to the organization.  I just don't think it should be tied to how many people happen to live in your area.

Try not to confuse analogy with homology.

[dwb]

hmmm... I'm going to take a step back here.

What is the problem?  What is the background/justification indicating that issues exist that require changes of this magnitude?  What are some of the possible ways to address the problem?

Now, how does your recommended solution address those problems?  What are the benefits and drawbacks to your proposal?

I suspect reasonable minds will disagree on whether the answers to the questions I have posed justify basically scraping the current grade/professional development approach.

For whatever nitpick things I could point out in the proposed solution, I'm still hung up on why we're discussing solutions to begin with.

[pixelwonk]

*Bump*

I considered starting a new topic about this since it's come up again in current conversations, but I thought it would be fair to include the already stated opposing arguments.

I've moderately ascribed to the idea that grade be tied to position, but it's taken a few years to really sink in. Almost one year to the day, we're talking about it again here, as well as the other august CAP related forum, CadetStuff. Must have some importance, eh?

Some would say that folks don't want to give up their oak leaves and I'd agree with that, ...somewhat. I do know something about this, as I've recently done it myself.

After 5 years of wearing train tracks and oak leaves, I've chosen to wear 1st Lt bars again, happily.  Like others who have discussed the idea of having flight officer grades across the entire class of SM membership, I favor the idea. I'm a realist, however, so I'm simply working what we have in my own way. 

Currently I'm a Wing staffer.  I've been one for about half my time in CAP, as well as a squadron staffer, up to the position of Deputy. I haven't been in command of a unit yet, although the opportunity presented itself when family and work obligations precluded me from talking the hot seat. I haven't spent any time working an encampment, which is also something I'd like to do in the future.  Without any real The buck stops here type of jobs, how could I just keep going up?  The individuals who I have the most respect for have all held command duties, and I believe they came out of their jobs with a healthy amount of life experience from the position. OTOH, I've seen a fair share of real choads wearing gold and silver oak leaves, who imply common sense, bearing, trustworthiness, whathaveyou, simply because they wear the leaves.  In my opinion, they never should have skated past 1st Lt.

Anyway, it seemed hypocritical of myself to not walk the walk, so I did what I could within the system that I have.

Causing change such as tying grade to responsibility may seem impossible. How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.

[Dragoon]

As a side comment if someone is going to play the "We're not the Air Force (or military)" card on the issue of grade, it's fair to respond:

"Fine, then eliminate Air Force (or military) grade insignia entirely!"

Problem solved.

[pixelwonk]

Not really.

Eliminating military rank and insignias from CAP is not the be all to end all.  It's probably a reasonable estimation to say that the majority of CAP members believe that CAP grade means nothing, yet they invested their precious time and energy to get it.

With that in mind, it should improve morale to restructure the CAP grade system. To achieve this:

• All CAP members are challenged further by Professional development
• Members are still rewarded for their efforts via CAP distinctive flight officer grades
• Those aspiring to command at all levels would pursue real command specialty tracks and be rewarded with traditionally commissioned grades. Thus, commissioned grades at all echelons would carry weight, not just Corporate officers.

[Capt M. Sherrod]

How do you propose to challenge members further through Professional Development when it is already a challenge to get them to take the Professional Development we have now?  And I'm talking about both the death by powerpoint courses and the 20 yr old material in the AFIADL courses.

[pixelwonk]

To answer your question with a question, If Pro Dev is unsatisfactory, then why leave things the same?  Many are bored with what we currently have, suggesting that Professional development needs to be revamped over time. ...And yes, made more challenging, more interesting, and presented by people who are as zealous about Pro Dev as some are about the color orange.

I don't propose to have all the answers.  Heck, even if I had some of the answers I'd spend my time actually fleshing out ideas rather than frittering away my hours on forum boards. 

   

[Capt M. Sherrod]

Please don't misunderstand my question - I completely agree with you that PD needs to be revamped.  I was simply curious as to if you had some thoughts / suggestions on the matter. 

I have been in the program long enough to have sat through the death by powerpoint SLS and CLC and then taught at the "new SLS".  While it is still heavy on powerpoint, it is a vast improvement over the former version.  I think that it is important for members of other squadrons to get together and work through problems together.  This allows for camaraderie and networking so you know some people when questions come up and you don't get the answers you need from your chain of command.  I think it gives you a valuable perspective of the larger organization, outside of each person's own squadron.

As far as the AFIADL courses are concerned (CAP Specific), I think that NHQ should spend some serious time in not coming up with alternatives (UCC or TLC in lieu of CAPSOC) but rather, take the time to properly update the material.  Honestly, how is someone supposed to take the course serious when Al Gore, the father of the internet, is still the Vice-President.

I would like to work with you and any of the other PD folks on this forum to help augment some change and arrive at some better material.  Thank you for your thoughts. 

[dwb]

Looking back over my posts in this thread, I've learned something.  It has to do with Incrementalists vs. Completionists.

I'm an incrementalist.  I want to make a little progress every day, move forward a little bit every day, and eventually make things better.  Completionists see a soup to nuts revolutionary solution, and it's useless for me to poke holes in it with my evolutionary frame of mind.

I'm just not going to agree to such a fundamental change, because I know it won't happen.  I advocate things like making professional development better, and training commanders, and making them more accountable for the performance of their units... things that are achievable improvements.

The fundamental, philosophical breaking of rank from PD is a pipe dream to me, it's too much.  It's not that I'm resistant to change, it's that I'm looking for a solution that we can get to from here.  Why argue about things that won't happen, because the political landscape (or even our parent service) won't allow it?

But that's just me.  Some people are dreamers, and that's good, because we need dreamers.  I recognize the importance of dreamers, because someone needs to think about 10-15 years from now, or we'll be hosed when then becomes now.

In the mean time... this is all just crazy talk.  Besides, I just spent all that money and time sewing on oak leaves a couple months ago, I don't want to change it again so soon.

[SarDragon]

All of the CAP formal training would improve if there was an instructor training program in place. The lesson material and visual aids are usable, but many of the folks using them are untrained. That, to me, is a much better cause to spend out time and effort on.

[pixelwonk]

Looking back over my posts in this thread, I've learned something.  It has to do with Incrementalists vs. Completionists.

I'm an incrementalist.  I want to make a little progress every day, move forward a little bit every day, and eventually make things better.  Completionists see a soup to nuts revolutionary solution, and it's useless for me to poke holes in it with my evolutionary frame of mind

I'm just not going to agree to such a fundamental change, because I know it won't happen.  I advocate things like making professional development better, and training commanders, and making them more accountable for the performance of their units... things that are achievable improvements.

The fundamental, philosophical breaking of rank from PD is a pipe dream to me, it's too much.  It's not that I'm resistant to change, it's that I'm looking for a solution that we can get to from here.  Why argue about things that won't happen, because the political landscape (or even our parent service) won't allow it?

But that's just me.  Some people are dreamers, and that's good, because we need dreamers.  I recognize the importance of dreamers, because someone needs to think about 10-15 years from now, or we'll be hosed when then becomes now.

In the mean time... this is all just crazy talk.  Besides, I just spent all that money and time sewing on oak leaves a couple months ago, I don't want to change it again so soon.

There's a lot of crazy talk going on here these days.  Some would have you sewing your gold oak leaves onto a boy scout uniform.

Admittedly, what we're discussing here is too much.  It simply won't happen any time soon, if at all. But anybody who has read this thread has just heard of somebody who has agreed with it to the point of demoting his own grade to further the idea.  To me, that's doing more than most, and it's a start. At the very least, I'm doing what I feel is right for me.  At the most, who knows?

Pipe-dream changes can only start with "I knew of this one guy who" types of conversations. Or a lot of money.  I don't have that, but I do have your ear. 

[pixelwonk]

All of the CAP formal training would improve if there was an instructor training program in place. The lesson material and visual aids are usable, but many of the folks using them are untrained. That, to me, is a much better cause to spend out time and effort on.

Word! 
Perhaps the teachers who we give Capt bars to and are then underutilized could be put into an instructor specialty track. They could be used for curriculum developers, instructors and instructor trainers.

[floridacyclist]

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

As a "Senior Member" I'll second that.  I also dislike the term "Senior Member Without Grade."
I don't expect to be an officer from day one, but how about "Airman" or something like that?

We call our folks "Officer Candidates" until they pin something on besides "CAP"

[dwb]

but I do have your ear. 

Ahhh!  Give my ear back, you thief!  Now I have to sew that back on, too!

[Ricochet13]

Perhaps the teachers who we give Capt bars to and are then underutilized could be put into an instructor specialty track. They could be used for curriculum developers, instructors and instructor trainers.

It would be interesting to see the numbers regarding professional educators who have received special appointment to 1LT, CPT, and MAJ nationally.  Might very well be an untapped source of expertise regarding instructor training.  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.

[Major Carrales]

Perhaps the teachers who we give Capt bars to and are then underutilized could be put into an instructor specialty track. They could be used for curriculum developers, instructors and instructor trainers.

It would be interesting to see the numbers regarding professional educators who have received special appointment to 1LT, CPT, and MAJ nationally.  Might very well be an untapped source of expertise regarding instructor training.  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.

I am a professional educator as well as trained historian, and did not get special promotions.  I, however, would one day like to apply my trade to an instructor program in CAP.

[Al Sayre]

This is probably going to get me flamed big time, but like Boortz says, "Somebody's got to say it". 

I have no problem with the idea of using professional educators as CAP instructors, but I think they need to become subject matter experts before they start teaching a given course. 

[Rant]This is a large part of what I see wrong with our school systems today.  There are far too many people teaching our children with a degree in education that have no background in or in depth knowledge of the material they are teaching.  From what I have seen of the education curricula, it is really 2 years of general studies and 2 years of how to teach.  Some states will let allow people to teach with not much more than a high school diploma and a teaching certificate. 

I expect someone who is teaching H.S. Mathematics (Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry) to have at least taken Calculus so they understand why some of the concepts are important, and someone who is teaching Chemistry to have taken a couple of Physics courses so that they understand heat transfer etc.  I expect an English teacher to have a passing familiarity with literature beyond Tolkien, Shakespear and Dickinson, and a History teacher to be familiar with the Anti-Federalist Papers (I had one tell me that no such thing existed... sad) [/Rant]

[Major Carrales]

This is probably going to get me flamed big time, but like Boortz says, "Somebody's got to say it". 

First of all, while I have great deal of respect for Mr Boortz (fair tax), he is way off the  mark on his agendistic rants about public education and the majority of educators.

The United States is among the only nations in the world that tries to educate every single student.  Some nations, most actually, only educate the rich and "give up" on the rest.  Thus, they have an education "gap" that often breeds revolution.  Ignorant fools are excellent sheep...and while governments are apt to control such folks...they are often taken in by Hitler types and other fanatics.  At lease in America even the majority of dropouts get something.

I have yet to hear Mr Boortz provide any viable solution to this problem.  Vouchers and the rest are not viable. They take away from the resources of already struggling schools and converts private schools into public ones. 

If you think that students "fall through the cracks" of Public Education, implement a voucher program and watch the following happen...

1) State defacto control of Private Schools...which would now be getting public money and...if performance drops, the Populace will call for accountability from these schools.  Likely some politician will call for government regulation of Private Schools.

2) Loss of Private School ability to "turn folks away..." with vouchers a Private school will have to take everyone, even the gangbangers.  One lawsuit will establish the precedent...then everything that make private schools beneficial over public schools will be lost since they will be PUBLIC. 

3) Students that constantally change schools...parents will shop around until they find a school that, contrary to the popular preception of looking for a good education, will instead try to find a school that will best babysit their child.

Shall I go on?

Private Schools are great, mostly because they can refuse the "rejects" and "expel" the major disruptors.  I have, in the last 9 years, taught students who (had they been two years older) would be defined as criminals.  Would a Private School accept a 17 year old 8th Grader on probation?

[Al Sayre]

See, and I was just refering to the title of one of his books... 

My point had nothing to do with the public vs. private school issues and all of the rest of Boortz's opinions.  I agree with some, not with others.  I simply believe that if you are going to teach a subject, you ought to know a bit more about it than is presented in the teachers edition of the workbook.

[Al Sayre]

Would a Private School accept a 17 year old 8th Grader on probation?

How about a 16 year old 4th grader with no social skills and dumber than a box of hammers?  I had one in my 4th grade class at a private (Catholic) school back in '69...  You really don't want to get me going on the whole social promotion rant...

[Major Carrales]

See, and I was just refering to the title of one of his books... 

My point had nothing to do with the public vs. private school issues and all of the rest of Boortz's opinions.  I agree with some, not with others.  I simply believe that if you are going to teach a subject, you ought to know a bit more about it than is presented in the teachers edition of the workbook.

I agree, too many time the idea is that "we need a coach for some sport let's see...can you theach history?"   Knowledge of the subject is less than the need to make district.

[Major Carrales]

Would a Private School accept a 17 year old 8th Grader on probation?

How about a 16 year old 4th grader with no social skills and dumber than a box of hammers?  I had one in my 4th grade class at a private (Catholic) school back in '69...  You really don't want to get me going on the whole social promotion rant...

What do you do with students like that?  For the most part I have seen that it is not developmental or skill related more than it is apathy.

[Ricochet13]

Just astonishing . . .

Well perhaps members who are professional educators could be closely scrutinized and the "good" one's ferreted out.   Maybe those individuals might want to spend time helping with curriculum and developing an instructor training program?  There must be one or two nationwide who would be capable??

By the way . . here's a link to the Anti-Federalist Papers http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm.

[ZigZag911]

  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.

Are you suggesting that they teach the instructor courses?

That makes a lot of sense.

Or are you suggesting they take instructor courses?

Speaking as a professional educator who has endured TTT type classes on occasion,  the average CAP/military instructor course does not have much to offer an experienced classroom teacher.

[Ricochet13]

  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.

Are you suggesting that they teach the instructor courses?

That makes a lot of sense.

Or are you suggesting they take instructor courses?

Speaking as a professional educator who has endured TTT type classes on occasion,  the average CAP/military instructor course does not have much to offer an experienced classroom teacher.

I would agree with your conclusion and was suggesting professional educators teach the instructor courses.  Of course, there must certainly be non-educators who would be able to develop and teach such a program too.

[ZigZag911]

This is probably going to get me flamed big time, but like Boortz says, "Somebody's got to say it". 

I have no problem with the idea of using professional educators as CAP instructors, but I think they need to become subject matter experts before they start teaching a given course. 

You, Sir, are absolutely correct!

CAP needs to help its professional educators learn about CAP, especially those areas in which they will instruct. Technically members who receive officer appointments as professional educators are supposed to be assigned as AE officers.

Unfortunately many, perhaps most, have no background in aerospace education....it is this knowledge gap that needs to be closed.

My point is that CAP does not need to be instructing educators in how to teach (anymore than we teach JAGs or CFIs how to do their thing).

[Ricochet13]

This is probably going to get me flamed big time, but like Boortz says, "Somebody's got to say it". 

I have no problem with the idea of using professional educators as CAP instructors, but I think they need to become subject matter experts before they start teaching a given course. 

You, Sir, are absolutely correct!

CAP needs to help its professional educators learn about CAP, especially those areas in which they will instruct. Technically members who receive officer appointments as professional educators are supposed to be assigned as AE officers.

Unfortunately many, perhaps most, have no background in aerospace education....it is this knowledge gap that needs to be closed.

My point is that CAP does not need to be instructing educators in how to teach (anymore than we teach JAGs or CFIs how to do their thing).

Just a follow-up on this point.  I have observed many "subject-matter" experts in CAP. Many are good at presenting information, but could be much better at teaching the subject.  That is to say there is a difference between "presenting information" and "teaching".  The same problem can be found in many fields, including education.  A successful teacher always needs to be aware that they are "teaching" people/students the "subject" they have mastered.

[Al Sayre]

By the way . . here's a link to the Anti-Federalist Papers http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm.

Thanks, I read the Borden book many years ago and used it as a source document for several papers I wrote in college.  It opened the eyes of a couple Professors...

[SarDragon]

  Would also wonder if educators would want to spend time doing additional curriculum development and instructor training as part of their involvement.

Are you suggesting that they teach the instructor courses?

That makes a lot of sense.

Or are you suggesting they take instructor courses?

Speaking as a professional educator who has endured TTT type classes on occasion,  the average CAP/military instructor course does not have much to offer an experienced classroom teacher.

I realize I'm getting into this a little late, but will post anyway.

There ISN'T an average CAP instructor course. As for military instructor courses, we can talk. I have a little BTDT there.

I make a distinction between teachers and instructors when discussing the exchange of knowledge, as do I when comparing education and training. Teachers teach/educate and instructors/trainers train. The former deal more in concepts and general information in increasing levels of complexity. F'rinstance, math teachers teach math - from 1 +1 on to calculus and above. English teachers teach English in much the same way.

OTOH, instructors do training - teaching specific skills and knowledge in a narrow field. The broad concepts are the same; the specific skills are a little different. The biggest difference is that instructors need to be Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in their narrow field.

I taught test equipment calibration in the Navy. In one respect, a broad field because of the different types of measuring instruments, but still narrow when related to electronics in general. I worked with standard, canned lessons that might have been developed somewhere else, and were standard throughout the Navy. The new SLS curriculum is done that way.

A military instructor course has a few things to offer teachers. The biggest thing that comes to mind would be working with that canned lesson and not having to develop their own lessons. There are also differences in class management related to student status - voluntary or captive audience?

Which are better? Neither. Different arenas and students. I think both are valuable, and can work with each other in our organization.

[Dragoon]

If you tied PD progression (and grade) to attendance at classes taught by highly qualified instructors....

.....then you'll have to deal with the fact that many wings won't have the neccessary instructors on hand, and therefore no one will be able to get promoted!

My first rule of CAP improvement schemes is that most, if not all CAP units are understaffed.  Always have been.  Probably always will be.   Any plan for CAP improvement that depends on having a fully trained, highly motivated staffer with lots of free time to fill every staff position.....is DOA.  Unless the plan involves hiring someone to do the job for money.

[ZigZag911]

Some of this can be resolved -- or at least alleviated -- by creating more distance learning opportunities, some interactive, some asynchronous (DVDs, for instance).

It will take time, but it's worthwhile having the best training we can....standardized (at least core training) wherever possible.

[davedove]

I tend to think it would work better if you think in the opposite direction.  Instead of requiring the higher level positions to be filled in certain ways, turn that around and require the higher level positions before you can get the higher ratings.  So, for example, if you see an officer with a master rating, you know that he had some time at wing level in that specialty.  And since Level IV requires a master rating, and Lt Col requires level IV, an officer cannot be promoted to Lt Col until he has some wing experience.  This, of course, would also carry down to lower ranks. 

This would also encourage people to work at higher levels of responsibility.  If someone really doesn't want to work above squadron level, that's fine, but they won't be promoted above a certain grade.  They can still perform all the squadron functions, so their participation won't be limited that way.

[Dragoon]

I tend to think it would work better if you think in the opposite direction.  Instead of requiring the higher level positions to be filled in certain ways, turn that around and require the higher level positions before you can get the higher ratings.  So, for example, if you see an officer with a master rating, you know that he had some time at wing level in that specialty.  And since Level IV requires a master rating, and Lt Col requires level IV, an officer cannot be promoted to Lt Col until he has some wing experience.  This, of course, would also carry down to lower ranks. 

This would also encourage people to work at higher levels of responsibility.  If someone really doesn't want to work above squadron level, that's fine, but they won't be promoted above a certain grade.  They can still perform all the squadron functions, so there participation won't be limited that way.

Dave,

Yup that approach makes perfect sense.  And in fact a few of the specialty tracks (like ES) require service above squadron level to earn the advanced ratings.

But I'm afraid it will never fly accross the board as long as our members believe that they all deserve to be Lt Col's regardless.

Because someone's gonna argue "if you require Wing service for Lt Col, then you are discriminating against all the folks who live too far from Wing HQ to participate."

[Skyray]

Because someone's gonna argue "if you require Wing service for Lt Col, then you are discriminating against all the folks who live too far from Wing HQ to participate."

Not going to be too cogent an argument with me.  I spent the better part of a year on North Carolina staff as an assistant safety officer.  The Wing HQ is at Burlington, approximately 800 miles from my front door.  I made every meeting.  Of course, I already was a Lieutenant Colonel.

[Sgt. Savage]

I think you have the answer to the problem already. There are numerous NCO's in the CAP that are being underutilized. Likewise, the lack of enlisted grades in general makes the CAP a top heavy and cumbersome organization.

Try This:

Everyone starts out as Airman. They work their way up to SAmn while doing Level 1, GES, basic CAP stuff. Let's say it takes 1 year. At that point, you select a career track such as Officer or Enlisted and a specialty track. Officer candidates with take up FO grades and spend the next year in OCS. Enlisted will start formal NCO Development. NCO's are trained instructors. We are the ones that are trained to DO, officers are trained to tell. Officers are strategic, NCO's are tactical. It's a perfect fit. The only requirement is that there be a way to provide oversight to assure that the product is high quality.

The end produces members that have a good understanding of CAP before they assume duties they may not be ready for and a tactical force trained to implement the commanders policies effectively and efficiently.

Needs some work but it can work.

[Dragoon]

Because someone's gonna argue "if you require Wing service for Lt Col, then you are discriminating against all the folks who live too far from Wing HQ to participate."

Not going to be too cogent an argument with me.  I spent the better part of a year on North Carolina staff as an assistant safety officer.  The Wing HQ is at Burlington, approximately 800 miles from my front door.  I made every meeting.  Of course, I already was a Lieutenant Colonel.

Exactly.  When there's a will and a desire to serve, there's a way.

In the reserve or guard, sometimes if you want to get promoted you need to transfer to a unit that has an opening for that grade.  I've seen reservists fly 100s of miles every month to be part of a unit that would had a slot for them.  I've also known folks who accepted the fact that they'd probably never get promoted to the top as long as they stayed in their current unit.


But I think as long was there is no responsibility or authority tied to CAP grade, it will be seen as a PD Award, and therefore something that everyone should have an equal chance at getting.

[ddelaney103]

I think you have the answer to the problem already. There are numerous NCO's in the CAP that are being underutilized. Likewise, the lack of enlisted grades in general makes the CAP a top heavy and cumbersome organization.

Try This:

Everyone starts out as Airman. They work their way up to SAmn while doing Level 1, GES, basic CAP stuff. Let's say it takes 1 year. At that point, you select a career track such as Officer or Enlisted and a specialty track. Officer candidates with take up FO grades and spend the next year in OCS. Enlisted will start formal NCO Development. NCO's are trained instructors. We are the ones that are trained to DO, officers are trained to tell. Officers are strategic, NCO's are tactical. It's a perfect fit. The only requirement is that there be a way to provide oversight to assure that the product is high quality.

The end produces members that have a good understanding of CAP before they assume duties they may not be ready for and a tactical force trained to implement the commanders policies effectively and efficiently.

Needs some work but it can work.

A few problems.

First, "select" - the reason we got away from NCO grades was because given a choice, people would rather be officers.  You either have to set up a gatekeeper function (pilot license, college degree) or just force everyone into the enlisted track and promote the best out to the officer track.  Either way you will end up with people disgruntled over not being an officer.

Another problem is our units are too small to effectively handle the separate officer and enlisted cultures.  If one of the first things you do to a small group is divide them, team spirit is going to take a hit.  Frankly, this sort of culture is implemented very unevenly in the Real AF, especially the Guard.

If we want to limit our officers to make them special, we would be better off using a WO/FO system for most of our members.  Then it's just a matter of giving the officers authority based on grade, get rid of Cadet officers and we have a working system without piles of grief.

I wouldn't hold my breath on it, though...

[Capt M. Sherrod]

I have not had a chance to completely digest all of it, however, I have started to look at the paper that was generated from the PD Summit that was held in March.  You can find the paper at the bottom of the PD page in the Members Section.  I have also linked it here:

http://www.cap.gov/documents/PDSummitMar07.pdf

I found it an interesting read.  It also looks like it starts to address our concerns/comments about more "professional and realistic" PD.  They acknowledge that some of the material we have is over 20 years old.  I'd like to know what others think of this.  I'd also like to put a package of ideas together to present to the Summit members prior to their next meeting.  If anyone is interested in helping with this, please PM to coordinate.

[Dragoon]

I really liked the part about aknowledging the fact that many members want to be "specialists" who only do one thing (fly, chaperone cadets, play with radios, etc), and that they need some sort of training/currency program.

In fact, a large number of our members don't really want to do anything above squadron staff level.  Acknowledging that there's no reason to push everyone towards Level V is a very realistic attitude to take.

[Capt M. Sherrod]

While getting everyone to Level 5 is ideal, obviously not everyone has the bandwith to do so.  Also, you can see towards the end of the document that somewhere between 95 and 96 percent do not complete Level 5 anyway.  That is a rather staggering number in my opinion.

Another item of interst and worth noting is the overabundance of Capt. in the organization.  My guess would be due to the "professional appointments" that then do not follow through and continue to progress.

Like I said, though, an interesting read IMHO, YMMV.

[ZigZag911]

As it stands we already start everyone out a 'enlisted' - SM without grade.

Rather than have a 'gatekeeper' requirement that prevents some members from becoming officers, why use the 'gate' to determine training paths.

Those lacking a college degree or other relevant experience (pilot rating beyond private, military service, etc) would follow a longer professional development 'path' to fill in some of the gaps in their backgrounds.

As a rule, I think it ought to take a year or two for the folks with college degrees, advanced pilot certificates, military experience, to become CAP officers....in part because I think Level 1 and Level 2 should be required for officer grade (as well as for command appointments at squadron or group levels).

With that as a guide, I'd say another three years minimum for those with only a high school education to earn officer rank. This would allow time for practical experience to be gained, and to complete Level 1, Level 2, and some sort of 'officer training course'.

I fully agree with reinstating NCO ranks in CAP for all members, realizing that some prefer the 'hands on' leadership & instructor roles filled by NCOs.

Even on this board, how often do we read posts from folks who want to do one thing, really well, at squadron level.....that, to me, describes someone similar to a military NCO.

[Skyray]

Some years ago a very experienced CAP member mentioned to me that in his opinion a very high percentage of Senior Members dropped out shortly after completing Level 5.  I don't know how to do a valid survey to check this out, but he was highly involved in membership and retention and I respect his opinion.  The dynamic makes logical sense, many people are motivated by challenge, and after the Gill Robb Wilson there aren't many in CAP.  Maybe we should give them a waiver so that they can go for SPAATZ?

[davedove]

On the same chart it shows that only 71% of senior members have completed Level II, so I'm not surprised that only about 5% complete Level V.

[DeputyDog]

Some years ago a very experienced CAP member mentioned to me that in his opinion a very high percentage of Senior Members dropped out shortly after completing Level 5. <snip>  The dynamic makes logical sense, many people are motivated by challenge, and after the Gill Robb Wilson there aren't many in CAP.

I can sympathize with that to some extent. I'm 28 and have completed Level V. I plan on staying in CAP until well past retirement age. What more is there to challenge me in professional development outside of ACSC and AWC for the next 40 or so years?

Getting master ratings in every single specialty track? 

[Ricochet13]

I can sympathize with that to some extent. I'm 28 and have completed Level V. I plan on staying in CAP until well past retirement age. What more is there to challenge me in professional development outside of ACSC and AWC for the next 40 or so years?

Getting master ratings in every single specialty track? 

[Skyray]

From Deputy Dog:
Getting master ratings in every single specialty track? 

Now that is a motivator that I had overlooked.  I have three or four Master ratings, but one that always evaded me was Stan/Eval.  I was Wing Safety Officer in a couple of wings, and it was mentioned to me a couple of times that Stan/Eval would give me more credibility.  Unfortunately I got dismembered before I got it, although I was steadily working toward it.

[Sgt. Savage]

Unfortunately I got dismembered.....

That is the single greatest thing I have ever seen on a forum. And I thought we wouldn't get along!

[Skyray]

Unfortunately I got dismembered.....

That is the single greatest thing I have ever seen on a forum. And I thought we wouldn't get along!

I am really a very nice guy, although I sometimes come on a wee bit monomaniacal.  I will try to subdue my passion about being dismembered.  Who knows, one of these days if they change the water in the big tank, I may be remembered.