The Chaplain Corps announced a new Chaplain school at NESA, to be rolled out this year. It's part of the new mission ratings for chaplains. I can't find a date for the one this summer. I assume it is at NESA in Indiana. Does anyone know the specifics? Thanks!
Ch, Capt Steve Mathews
By "new" this is an update to the existing Mission Chaplain, or something else?
I think this past year they beta tested a new Chaplain course at NESA, from what I remember hearing while I was there.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 01, 2016, 01:30:21 AM
By "new" this is an update to the existing Mission Chaplain, or something else?
See page 11:
http://capchaplain.com/downloads/Transmitter_Fall_2016.pdf
This is not going to help with the concept of moving CDI under cadet programs, instead this will only embolden the "Chaplain Lites" running around.
A emergency services qualification for a
Character Development Instructor, even with the fancy "Chaplain Support Specialist" name simply doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just dense.
Quote from: Fubar on December 01, 2016, 05:21:30 AM
A emergency services qualification for a Character Development Instructor, even with the fancy "Chaplain Support Specialist" name simply doesn't make sense to me.
You just don't see the bigger picture!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/11/article-2496954-19570B7C00000578-535_964x601.jpg)
In the wake of Hurricane Quicumque a CAP Rapid Character Force unpacks copies of various handouts
which will be used to facilitate discussions about online safety and manners to those in the affected areas.
Subject to change, the tentative dates are as follows, with all courses being held at Camp Atterbury, IN.
10-14 July: Mission Chaplain - CAP Support Rating (MC-CS)
17-21 July: Mission Chaplain - Disaster Support Rating (MC-DS)
18-22 September: Mission Chaplain - Air Force support Rating (MC-AF)
For further information, refer to The Transmitter (Fall 2016 edition)
Thanks, Southern Cross! I appreciate the dates!
Ch, Capt Steve Mathews
Ch Matthews,
Expect more information coming your way via your region or wing chaplain.
More information about the new mission chaplain / CDI ES rating here:
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Chaplain_Corps_Webinar__6_DEC_2016_69FF8939B457D.pdf
I've never heard non-chaplains say we need to expand the role of CAP chaplains. Most, like myself, accept CAP chaplaincy as a relic of the past that would be very tough to justify if CAP was starting from scratch today. I fear it would be taboo to publicly question the value of chaplains in CAP. Some traditions survive on inertia.
It's worth skimming through the PowerPoint referenced above to see the proposed patch/logo, it is a graphic arts tragedy.
Quote from: Damron on December 07, 2016, 03:54:31 AM
I've never heard non-chaplains say we need to expand the role of CAP chaplains. Most, like myself, accept CAP chaplaincy as a relic of the past that would be very tough to justify if CAP was starting from scratch today. I fear it would be taboo to publicly question the value of chaplains in CAP. Some traditions survive on inertia.
It's worth skimming through the PowerPoint referenced above to see the proposed patch/logo, it is a graphic arts tragedy.
Hi Damron,
Reference Finding 4.10, page 46 of the OSD findings: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf (http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf)
Then reference pp. 80-81 of the Air Force Follow On Review, out of the office of SECAF and the Chief of Staff:
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=14358 (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=14358)
Therein, you've now "
heard non-chaplains say that we need to expand the role of CAP chaplains".
The people making those statements are SECAF and the COS, our customers.
This is patently not a program surviving on inertia, as SAF has herein recognized a mission need for CAP support.
In short, this is a bit more than a draft patch. May I suggest you check it out...
V/r
Spam
There is a difference between CAP Chaplains, who, during extremely limited and specific circumstances, can
augment the USAF, are found to be lacking necessary training, which is reasonable, and the
suggestion or idea that CDIs, who were clearly intended as CP support staff, again with a very specific
and clear role within CAP, should be expected to act as mini-Chaplains during disaster situations.
In the former, the Chaplains may well be involved in missions CAP isn't as a matter of their
limited augmentee status, fair enough, you signed on for the whole boat when you decided to
become a CAP Chaplain, but in the latter, the average CAP CDI, nor member for that matter,
has any business anywhere near anything that encompasses "mass casualties".
I would also hazard that the average CAP CDI isn't involved in ES, either, as again, this
is a Cadet Program support role.
Part-time volunteers with a twice a-year 101 card are not prepared, nor expected to function
in an environment like that - situations which cause paid, experienced professionals permanent
mental damage. Heck, the average CAP ES asset isn't prepared for the stress of the ops
tempo of a real mission, let alone anything involving mass loss of life or injury.
In those cases CAP people belong "in the rear, with the gear" helping out in a tertiary role
while the professionals deal with the mayhem.
There is also the non-trivial issue of the fact that CAP doesn't actually have a Disaster Relief doctrine.
Yes, I know what CAPP225 says, it asserts the first and foremost role of the CDI as providing
cadet character instruction, and then it continues with Chaplain support, which is one major reason
a lot of otherwise extremely qualified and experienced senior members are not interested in the program -
members who before CDI existed did a great job providing the ML sessions but who are now
restricted from that ability.
The assertion is made regularly by the Chaplain Corps that more members sign up every year
to be CDIs. No doubt, but not because there's a clamoring to support the Chaplains in their
role, but because units find themselves in the unfair position of having no Chaplain, and therefore
no one but the CC to provide CD sessions, which in many cases cause conflicts with other duties.
That is, without exception, the only reason anyone I have ever encountered within CAP has been interested
in the CDI appointment, including members who are clergy but are not interested in being Chaplains.
The question is easily answered - absent cadets, and their need for regular CD sessions, there would be no "CDIs" in CAP,
however given the nature of paramilitary and emergency service organizations, there would likely be
Chaplains.
Further to the presentation itself...
The "mandate", apparently, was specifically directed at Chaplain Augmentees who are
required by regulation to maintain the same standard of training as military Chaplains,
again, fair enough.
But it also makes reference a number of times to both Fort Hood and "violence" - those
are not "disaster relief", those are law enforcement situations, CAP doesn't do that and
isn't allowed to (nor should it be looking to get involved there).
CAP Chaplains may find themselves in the very rare situation of being involved in
a Fort Hood situation by virtue of their augmentee ability, but not a CAP CDI.
Any justification for CDI ES training should leave Fort Hood and situations of "violence"
out of the verbiage for the same reasons aircrews don't do "surveillance" or similar LEA functions.
A larger question, why not just get the Chaplains the training they are missing with
local agencies and fulfill the mandate of the finding, rather then lighting up an entirely
new school that will leave a large number of MCs and unit Chaplains without the
requirements anyway?
Chaplains are a special interest group in the military and in CAP. It appears to be a group and mission that few want to question. More often than not, they get what they want. After all, why upset the nice old guy?
If we need more mental health professionals, let's recruit them. Very few of our chaplains have any credential in counseling, even pastoral counseling. Despite this, we identify them as counseling resources. Pastoral counseling makes as much sense to me as pastoral piloting.
To the credit of CAP chaplains, they know they are swimming in a secular ocean these days. Their prayers are now usually prefaced with a message to non-believers and the prayers themselves have few doctrinal references. Instead of ordained pastors, we might want to pursue Tony Robbins graduates.
Quote from: Damron on December 07, 2016, 01:48:49 PM
Chaplains are a special interest group in the military and in CAP. It appears to be a group and mission that few want to question. More often than not, they get what they want. After all, why upset the nice old guy?
If we need more mental health professionals, let's recruit them. Very few of our chaplains have any credential in counseling, even pastoral counseling. Despite this, we identify them as counseling resources. Pastoral counseling makes as much sense to me as pastoral piloting.
To the credit of CAP chaplains, they know they are swimming in a secular ocean these days. Their prayers are now usually prefaced with a message to non-believers and the prayers themselves have few doctrinal references. Instead of ordained pastors, we might want to pursue Tony Robbins graduates.
Well, Jesus, the Buddha, and Moses would not have met the current DoD Chaplaincy vetting and endorsement standards, but they all were doubtless fine and wise counselors. I'll let Chappie or someone else answer in detail but I do believe that even the lowest common denominator accredited program accepted for DoD Chaplain endorsement (the Liberty University M.Div program, which is not accepted any more, apparently, as they raise the bar) does indeed have professional counseling course work requirements. Thus, as all of our CAP chaplains must meet DoD accreditation standards, all of our CAP chaplains have, indeed, had counseling training.
I do know that were I faced with the loss of my spouse and/or kids due to violence, I would far, far, rather have a DoD/CAP chaplain of my faith community than a Tony Robbins yammering at me. Credentials matter to governing bodies and program manager "gate keeper" types, not to those who need to receive spiritual care from those of their faith tradition. Bearing in mind again that the role here of the chaplain is pastoral care (not proselytization), this seems to me to be a sound measure to increase/optimize that access.
Again anecdotally from my personal standpoint: in my first Sqdn. command, while our unit was activated for 40+ days during the 1993 Midwest floods, one of my cadets (a senior C/NCO) died of a massive heart attack (he literally dropped dead in his BDUs and boots while serving his neighbors on the mission). Our unit was emotionally hit hard, and it was a MOWG CAP chaplain who stepped in to minister to us in our loss at a time when many of us (e.g. me) were strong in belief but didn't have a home church or pastor outside of CAP. We recovered, got back on the line, and continued to support the DR mission all summer. Tony Robbins? No thanks. We weren't starting a business, we were facing mortality and questions eternal.
YMMV. I think this is an OK measure.
V/r
Spam
PS, don't you think the "nice old guy" comment was a big disparaging of chaplains? (grin)
Just a "nice old guy" reading the remarks with interest (who has been a CAP Chaplain for 20+ years. The Chaplain Corps just observed its 65th anniversary, so I have been around for awhile). Thanks for the insights/observations.
Spam -- the lowest common denominator for an appointment as a CAP Chaplain:
6. Chaplain Appointment.
a. Senior Membership. As a prerequisite to appointment as a chaplain, an applicant must meet all requirements for senior membership (see CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership).
b. Ecclesiastical Endorsement. Chaplains will receive an ecclesiastical endorsement from a faith group listed by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board (AFCB) prior to appointment as a chaplain. Endorsements are valid until withdrawn or asked to be renewed by the individual endorser. Chaplains who change denominational affiliation must obtain a new endorsement. If a new endorsement or renewal is not obtained within 90 days, their chaplain status will be withdrawn. The endorsement shall certify that the applicant is: (1) A fully ordained or qualified clergy/religious professional of their faith group.
(2) Actively engaged in or retired from a denominationally approved vocation.
(3) Recommended as being spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally qualified to represent the applicant's religious body as a CAP chaplain.
c. Formal Educational Requirements. Chaplain applicants shall meet the educational requirements specified in DoD Instruction 1304.28 as follows: (1) "The educationally qualified applicant shall possess a baccalaureate degree with not less than 120 semester hours (180 quarter hours) from a qualifying educational institution."
(2) "The educationally qualified applicant shall also possess a post-baccalaureate graduate degree in the field of theological or related studies from a qualifying educational institution. A qualifying graduate degree program shall require no fewer than 72 semester hours (108 quarter hours) of graduate-level work. Related studies may include graduate courses in pastoral counseling, social work, religious administration and similar disciplines when one-half of the earned graduate credits include topics in general religion, world religions, the practice of religion, theology, religious philosophy, religious ethics and/or the foundational writings from the applicant's religious tradition."
(3) "A qualifying educational institution is an accredited college, university, or school of theology listed in the current edition of the American Council on Education (ACE), Accredited Institutions of Post-secondary Education and relevant ACE supplements to that publication (Reference (e)), or any unaccredited institution that meets the requirements of subparagraphs 6.2.1 through 6.2.4."
(4) The Chief of the Chaplain Corps (CAP/HC) may grant a waiver to those who do not meet the graduate study requirement providing they meet all other requirements and present valid documentation of at least 5 years of full time ministry experience as a pastor within their denomination.
(5) All other exceptions to the educational qualifications of a chaplain applicant shall be determined in accordance with DoD Instruction 1304.28.
Eclipse - the impetus of the mandated training (based on the Ft. Hood shooting/finding) was not restricted to "violence" rather it is to any event that might be considered "mass casualty".
Quote from: Damron on December 07, 2016, 01:48:49 PM
Chaplains are a special interest group in the military and in CAP. It appears to be a group and mission that few want to question. More often than not, they get what they want. After all, why upset the nice old guy?
If we need more mental health professionals, let's recruit them. Very few of our chaplains have any credential in counseling, even pastoral counseling. Despite this, we identify them as counseling resources. Pastoral counseling makes as much sense to me as pastoral piloting.
To the credit of CAP chaplains, they know they are swimming in a secular ocean these days. Their prayers are now usually prefaced with a message to non-believers and the prayers themselves have few doctrinal references. Instead of ordained pastors, we might want to pursue Tony Robbins graduates.
"More often than not, they get what they want" .... that is news to me having served at all levels of CAP :)
Most chaplains have had some training in counseling either in their years of academia or in-service training.
Serving as a LE, military or CAP chaplain does require a "special breed" of individual who can serve in a secular, pluralistic environment.
Quote from: Damron on December 07, 2016, 03:54:31 AM
<snip>
It's worth skimming through the PowerPoint referenced above to see the proposed patch/logo, it is a graphic arts tragedy.
Please note that the slide regarding the badges/patches said it was "Proposed"...not "Approved" - big difference ;)
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 07:29:08 PM
Eclipse - the impetus of the mandated training (based on the Ft. Hood shooting/finding) was not restricted to "violence" rather it is to any event that might be considered "mass casualty".
I don't think I said it was, but it certainly was one of the issues raised and clearly one of the places intended for the potential use of CDIs.
I still stand by the fact that few if any CAP members, absent external training or affiliation, are prepared to be involved in >any< "
mass casualty situation, and CAP should steer well clear of those incidents.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 07, 2016, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 07:29:08 PM
Eclipse - the impetus of the mandated training (based on the Ft. Hood shooting/finding) was not restricted to "violence" rather it is to any event that might be considered "mass casualty".
I don't think I said it was, but it certainly was one of the issues raised and clearly one of the places intended for the potential use of CDIs.
I still stand by the fact that few if any CAP members, absent external training or affiliation, are prepared to be involved in >any< "
mass casualty situation, and CAP should steer well clear of those incidents.
A lot of this training for the new MC rating came directly from CAP's involvement in "Deepwater Horizon" and various hurricane/flooding/etc missions.
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 08:08:27 PM
A lot of this training for the new MC rating came directly from CAP's involvement in "Deepwater Horizon" and various hurricane/flooding/etc missions.
None of which involved "mass casualties", at least not where CAP was involved.
I'm still not sure how a CDI is somewhat more qualified to pursue training and qualification as a CSS over other members with GES and advanced ES qualifications. Since educational requirements were removed, the only training requirements for CDI appointment are TLC and Basic Instructor Course. CDIs don't even require endorsement by a religious body anymore and most don't work directly with any Chaplain. In fact, the new requirements in CAPR 265-1 allows almost anyone to be vetted and appointed a CDI. So why is that a requirement for CSS?
My experience as a commander has been that most members are appointed CDI only (or primarily) because of the requirement to teach Character Development to cadets in the absence of a Chaplain IAW CAPR 265-1. Absent this requirement, I don't believe many members would pursue this endorsement. Furthermore, the CDI endorsement doesn't guarantee any disposition to work with a Chaplain above that of other members. CDI as a prerequisite for CSS just doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps someone involved with this project can shed some light.
As for the revamped MC training, I only hope this is being done in coordination with other ICS specialty qualifications. After all, the MC works for the IC and in coordination with the rest of the IMT. Their training should reflect that. Since Chaplains will never work on a CAP mission by themselves, but as part of the IMT, I would like to see more involvement of Chaplains in ES training and exercises. Sadly, that has not been my experience.
** edited to add missing word (bolded)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 09:29:04 PM
I'm still not sure how a CDI is somewhat more qualified to pursue training and qualification as a CSS over other members with GES and advanced ES qualifications. Since educational requirements were removed, the only training requirements for CDI appointment are TLC and Basic Instructor Course. CDIs don't even require endorsement by a religious body anymore and most work directly with any Chaplain. In fact, the new requirements in CAPR 265-1 allows almost anyone to be vetted and appointed a CDI. So why is that a requirement for CSS?
My experience as a commander has been that most members are appointed CDI only (or primarily) because of the requirement to teach Character Development to cadets in the absence of a Chaplain IAW CAPR 265-1. Absent this requirement, I don't believe many members would pursue this endorsement. Furthermore, the CDI endorsement doesn't guarantee any disposition to work with a Chaplain above that of other members. CDI as a prerequisite for CSS just doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps someone involved with this project can shed some light.
Yep - there appears to be some serious disconnect between the field and NHQ in regards to "why" most members become CDIs.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 09:29:04 PM
As for the revamped MC training, I only hope this is being done in coordination with other ICS specialty qualifications. After all, the MC works for the IC and in coordination with the rest of the IMT. Their training should reflect that. Since Chaplains will never work on a CAP mission by themselves, but as part of the IMT, I would like to see more involvement of Chaplains in ES training and exercises. Sadly, that has not been my experience.
Agree, however CAP Chaplains
can be involved in USAF operations CAP isn't a part of and outside the normal CAP response framework and chain.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 07, 2016, 09:40:02 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 09:29:04 PM
As for the revamped MC training, I only hope this is being done in coordination with other ICS specialty qualifications. After all, the MC works for the IC and in coordination with the rest of the IMT. Their training should reflect that. Since Chaplains will never work on a CAP mission by themselves, but as part of the IMT, I would like to see more involvement of Chaplains in ES training and exercises. Sadly, that has not been my experience.
Agree, however CAP Chaplains can be involved in USAF operations CAP isn't a part of and outside the normal CAP response framework and chain.
True, but they now have a rating that should reflect that role.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:02:13 PM
True, but they now have a rating that should reflect that role.
They always did "CAP Chaplain". In fact, AFAIK, "Mission Chaplain" was / is a CAP thing irrelevant to the USAF Chaplain Augmentation program.
CAP Chaplains are required to have the same level of training as USAF Chaplains, respectively, the finding indicated they didn't, primarily I would guess because the
majority of CAP Chaplains aren't involved in ES, in CAP
or externally. The average neighborhood priest, minister, or Rabbi isn't likely
to have mass casualty or similar training, yet those are the people being appointed as CAP Chaplains, and in some cases providing augmentation support,
irrespective of being an MC.
That's not going to change, nor be helped much, by a school at NESA which few will attend.
I just hope their training is being developed in line with and to support the objectives of CAP as a whole when it comes to SAR, DR, and other operations. I think there's a bit of a disconnect right now, but easily addressed. The Chaplain Program, just like any other program in CAP (Communications, Logistics, Public Affairs, etc.), cannot be developed in isolation, but as part of an integrated approach. After all, these are all support functions, not the mission itself.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:13:13 PM
I just hope their training is being developed in line with and to support the objectives of CAP as a whole when it comes to SAR, DR, and other operations. I think there's a bit of a disconnect right now, but easily addressed. The Chaplain Program, just like any other program in CAP (Communications, Logistics, Public Affairs, etc.), cannot be developed in isolation, but as part of an integrated approach. After all, these are all support functions, not the mission itself.
Rest assure that John Desmarais -- Director of Operations -- has been involved in the process from the beginning. These changes have not been developed in isolation...nor the establishment of the course of study at NESA. It has transpired under his "watchful" eye and with his valued input.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 07, 2016, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:02:13 PM
True, but they now have a rating that should reflect that role.
They always did "CAP Chaplain". In fact, AFAIK, "Mission Chaplain" was / is a CAP thing irrelevant to the USAF Chaplain Augmentation program.
CAP Chaplains are required to have the same level of training as USAF Chaplains, respectively, the finding indicated they didn't, primarily I would guess because the
majority of CAP Chaplains aren't involved in ES, in CAP or externally. The average neighborhood priest, minister, or Rabbi isn't likely
to have mass casualty or similar training, yet those are the people being appointed as CAP Chaplains, and in some cases providing augmentation support,
irrespective of being an MC.
That's not going to change, nor be helped much, by a school at NESA which few will attend.
That is true that the current MC rating is irrelevant to the USAF Chaplain Corps Augmentation program....hence the new rating for Mission Chaplain - Air Force Support Rating. Also keep in mind that the MC SQTRS have not been touched in nearly 10 years or more.
NESA will not be the only venue for training. Most of the FEMA classes are on-line...and the CAP related courses will be taught at CCRSC, Wing Conferences, online. The NESA experience/location is to make available a one-stop training (rather than knocking it out here and there over the course of months/years) as well as the inter-disciplinary nature of the school (i.e. training scenarios, working with the ground teams, etc).
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:13:13 PM
I just hope their training is being developed in line with and to support the objectives of CAP as a whole when it comes to SAR, DR, and other operations. I think there's a bit of a disconnect right now, but easily addressed. The Chaplain Program, just like any other program in CAP (Communications, Logistics, Public Affairs, etc.), cannot be developed in isolation, but as part of an integrated approach. After all, these are all support functions, not the mission itself.
Rest assure that John Desmarais -- Director of Operations -- has been involved in the process from the beginning. These changes have not been developed in isolation...nor the established of the course of study at NESA. It has transpired under his "watchful" eye and with his valued input.
I'm sure the Chaplain Corps have worked very hard and diligently to produce a great training program. That can be said of most programs in CAP. Yet, when it comes to implementation, many of these programs don't seem to be in sync with the reality in the field. Of course, I'm not saying that's going to be the case with this program. Only that that has been the experience with other programs.
Frankly, I welcome any improvement over the current MC SQTR, which doesn't cover or require much. I also want to see more chaplains actively participating in exercises and missions. I think that would be beneficial not only to MCs, but to ICs and other IMT members.
If you could, I would appreciate clarification on the CSS prerequisite. Why the CDI requirement? Why should a member wanting to support the Mission Chaplain role as a Chaplain Support Specialist have to be appointed as a CDI first? CDI has nothing to do with Emergency Services and everything to do with Cadet Programs. I can think of members who are not CDI, but would probably like to pursue the CSS qualification. Thank you for any information you can provide.
I am seeking out the clarification for you :) My emails have not been answered yet and once I get an answer I will be sure to post it.
As for the participation in exercises and missions, I can attest to the fact that more times than not, the chaplain is the last to know of the event. When the SARX is being planned, the chaplain needs to be on the check-list of IC to invite. One of the reasons that this specialty track is being updated is that we have had very few MC rated chaplains. With the 3-tier system, more chaplains can be rated for CAP related missions -- which should reflect in the "dings" received in Wing CIs or SARX findings.
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 11:09:52 PMWith the 3-tier system, more chaplains can be rated for CAP related missions -- which should reflect in the "dings" received in Wing CIs or SARX findings.
Having a different system won't grow more interested people.
The reasons Chaplains aren't "notified" of missions and training is that they can't be because they aren't qualified or interested in ES.
In my range of site and contact, the response is generally "Nah, I'm here for the kids..." There is also the non-trivial matter of
most training and SARExs occurring on weekends, which for the majority of faith is considered their "busy time".
Quote from: Eclipse on December 07, 2016, 11:16:59 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 07, 2016, 11:09:52 PMWith the 3-tier system, more chaplains can be rated for CAP related missions -- which should reflect in the "dings" received in Wing CIs or SARX findings.
Having a different system won't grow more interested people.
The reasons Chaplains aren't "notified" of missions and training is that they can't be because they aren't qualified or interested in ES.
In my range of site and contact, the response is generally "Nah, I'm here for the kids..." There is also the non-trivial matter of
most training and SARExs occurring on weekends, which for the majority of faith is considered their "busy time".
Since the introduction of the CAPP221 in 2012, ES has been a part of each rating in Professional Development:
Technician - Obtain GES rating; Senior - Obtain Mission Chaplain rating; Master - additional training in CISM; Q-P-R; A.S.I.S.T or a course approved by the CCAC. Since then there has been a gradual uptick in qualified ES Chaplains due to the inclusion of ES as part of their professional development.
As for the training and SARXs on the week-ends....most Chaplains can attend on Saturday and participate -- and be able to return home in time for their services on Sunday (those who have services on Saturday...can be there on Sunday). I know that as a SET MC, I have signed off on several in the CAWG over the past couple of years. Yet in spite of my MC rating, I can attest that unless I make the initial contact with an IC based on the happenstance of hearing a SARX is being planned, I am out of the loop (probably since I am no longer assigned to a local squadron or wing). And then there are actual missions....for the most part launched remotely. The majority of missions involve UDF or ground teams. I can count on one hand the number of actual missions that I have been involved in the past 10 years.
The feedback I occasionally hear is that the Chaplain feels that their service is not desired -- either verbally ("Thank you for your offer...but we have this covered") or the attitude projected ("Chaplains...we don't need no stinkin' chaplains!"). It is difficult to get excited about working in such an environment. I, too, would rather work with cadets any day of the week where my presence is appreciated than to feel that who I am and what I do is barely tolerated by my fellow members.
Yes, ES is part of the 221 rating, but since there's no requirement to
pursue the rating, and many Chaplains
receive advanced grade based on their appointment, also little incentive to worry about that, especially
in light of the post 2014 advancement requirements. Considering that most of the rank and file are going to
top out at Captain, regardless, if you're already wearing the tracks, not much to push you further, and
the general attitude I've encountered from most CAP Chaplains is that grade is besides the point anyway.
Quote from: Chappie on December 08, 2016, 12:07:06 AM
The feedback I occasionally hear is that the Chaplain feels that their service is not desired -- either verbally ("Thank you for your offer...but we have this covered") or the attitude projected ("Chaplains...we don't need no stinkin' chaplains!"). It is difficult to get excited about working in such an environment. I, too, would rather work with cadets any day of the week where my presence is appreciated than to feel that who I am and what I do is barely tolerated by my fellow members.
Well, without putting too fine a point on it, sometimes people ignore the writing on the wall because that's easier then
accepting the reality of the situation.
And in a lot of cases the Chaplains themselves have caused or exacerbated the situation by their own behavior and proselytizing.
With no hyperbole, nor any intention to discuss specifics, some conversations I have had recently on this topic IRL indicate that
the Corps is far from accepting the proper decorum, or even their mandates when an opportunity to garner a flock is in sight.
Cadets are not a faith recruiting pool, nor a target for
moral judgement regarding behavior, yet that seems to be too much to ask for
some in the Corps.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2016, 12:26:24 AM
Well, without putting too fine a point on it, sometimes people ignore the writing on the wall because that's easier then accepting the reality of the situation.
CAP chaplains are swimming in a secular ocean and many fail to recognize it.
Given the atheist, Catholic, Jewish, and gay cadets in my squadron, I'm not sure how well a Protestant chaplain is actually received by my cadets. Even my church-going Protestant cadets are a bit uncomfortable as they have grown up in a culture where there isn't ceremonial prayer in public schools or the workplace - it is not lost on them that it is possible that the person leading prayer thinks some of their fellow cadets are doomed to eternal hell-fire unless they accept Christ as their savior.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't met a CAP chaplain I didn't like. Like others, I give them the podium and hope they don't offend the flock. I guess we should save any spirited debate for uniform issues.
On a side note: I have two members that submitted CDI packets. What's the average length of time for approval?
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 01:41:06 AM
Given the atheist, Catholic, Jewish, and gay cadets in my squadron,
See, there's my issue right there - I have no reason to be even
aware of the above in a CAP context.
Those situations have no relevance to CAP service, yet for some reason people seem to think it's a "thing".
(Damron, not saying you, just your example...)
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2016, 01:55:41 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 01:41:06 AM
Given the atheist, Catholic, Jewish, and gay cadets in my squadron,
See, there's my issue right there - I have no reason to be even aware of the above in a CAP context.
Those situations have no relevance to CAP service, yet for some reason people seem to think it's a "thing".
(Damron, not saying you, just your example...)
I see your point. While I believe in boundaries, we just come to know some things.
I think that chaplains should wear common insignia so we don't highlight differences. On a positive note, our former chaplain was a talented motivational speaker that found common ground among a diverse audience.
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 02:09:47 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2016, 01:55:41 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 01:41:06 AM
Given the atheist, Catholic, Jewish, and gay cadets in my squadron,
See, there's my issue right there - I have no reason to be even aware of the above in a CAP context.
Those situations have no relevance to CAP service, yet for some reason people seem to think it's a "thing".
(Damron, not saying you, just your example...)
I see your point. While I believe in boundaries, we just come to know some things.
I think that chaplains should wear common insignia so we don't highlight differences. On a positive note, our former chaplain was a talented motivational speaker that found common ground among a diverse audience.
Respectfully, think we should protect differences, not wipe them out. That's one of our key EEO principles, last I'd looked.
(Whats up here, that I of all people have turned into the diversity officer? How come diversity is good
unless you're a chaplain in which case your identity should be suppressed)????
V/r
Spam
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 01:41:06 AM
<snip>
On a side note: I have two members that submitted CDI packets. What's the average length of time for approval?
The average length of time for an appointment for a Chaplain or CDI depends on the time the initial paperwork (application/recommendation letter) gets from the local squadron (Sq CC signs off) to wing chaplain (Wing CC signs off) then to the region chaplain for a final look over of the packet -- making sure everything is in order. The region chaplain fires it off to NHQ for the Chief's approval. The Chief acts very quickly once the packet gets to NHQ. Speaking as a former region chaplain, I made it a point to get the packet off my desk within 48 hours.
Quote from: Spam on December 08, 2016, 05:11:42 AM
Respectfully, think we should protect differences, not wipe them out. That's one of our key EEO principles, last I'd looked.
(Whats up here, that I of all people have turned into the diversity officer? How come diversity is good unless you're a chaplain in which case your identity should be suppressed)????
V/r
Spam
Let's act like CAP is an employer and bound by EEO as described in Title 7.
There's a difference between protecting religious identity and observance of members, an EEO principle, and promotion of employer-led programs of a religious nature, which are permitted but are a common cause of EEO complaints. Cases related to Title 7 have found that employees must be able to opt-out of employer-led programs of a religious nature without recourse.
So, there is a difference between allowing a member the observance of his faith and creating "employer-led" programs of a religious nature. If our chaplains are supposed to serve all members, why should they wear insignia of one faith? We shouldn't "see" a member as Jewish. Why should we see a chaplain as Jewish?
I am making some assumptions. A chaplain could be an atheist. I imagine some are. I don't think that belief is a requirement. However, it's likely a chaplain wearing the cross is Christian and thinks that non-Christians can look forward to eternal [darn]ation. Given that we embrace diversity, how can this not be an issue?
So, no, I don't think that chaplains should wear the insignia of their religious association for the same reason I don't think members should wear religious items not required as a matter of observance.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:58:00 PM
<snip>
If you could, I would appreciate clarification on the CSS prerequisite. Why the CDI requirement? Why should a member wanting to support the Mission Chaplain role as a Chaplain Support Specialist have to be appointed as a CDI first? CDI has nothing to do with Emergency Services and everything to do with Cadet Programs. I can think of members who are not CDI, but would probably like to pursue the CSS qualification. Thank you for any information you can provide.
Answer came: the CSS rating is created/designed for Chaplain Corps personnel so that Chaplains/CDIs can form a Chaplain Support Team. Many CDIs had expressed a desire to assist Chaplains in handling administrative/logistical duties that might distract the Chaplain...should the Chaplain be engaged in other matters, the CDI can sit in on briefings. There is the MSA rating that others can pursue who are not members of the Chaplain Corps (in fact, that is one of my secondary ES ratings).
Quote from: Chappie on December 08, 2016, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 01:41:06 AM
<snip>
On a side note: I have two members that submitted CDI packets. What's the average length of time for approval?
The average length of time for an appointment for a Chaplain or CDI depends on the time the initial paperwork (application/recommendation letter) gets from the local squadron (Sq CC signs off) to wing chaplain (Wing CC signs off) then to the region chaplain for a final look over of the packet -- making sure everything is in order. The region chaplain fires it off to NHQ for the Chief's approval. The Chief acts very quickly once the packet gets to NHQ. Speaking as a former region chaplain, I made it a point to get the packet off my desk within 48 hours.
Thanks. I have a packet that took almost six months to get to NHQ, with frequent cage rattling. I guess CDI isn't really a priority in my wing.
Quote from: Damron on December 08, 2016, 06:45:33 AM
Quote from: Spam on December 08, 2016, 05:11:42 AM
Respectfully, think we should protect differences, not wipe them out. That's one of our key EEO principles, last I'd looked.
(Whats up here, that I of all people have turned into the diversity officer? How come diversity is good unless you're a chaplain in which case your identity should be suppressed)????
V/r
Spam
Let's act like CAP is an employer and bound by EEO as described in Title 7.
There's a difference between protecting religious identity and observance of members, an EEO principle, and promotion of employer-led programs of a religious nature, which are permitted but are a common cause of EEO complaints. Cases related to Title 7 have found that employees must be able to opt-out of employer-led programs of a religious nature without recourse.
So, there is a difference between allowing a member the observance of his faith and creating "employer-led" programs of a religious nature. If our chaplains are supposed to serve all members, why should they wear insignia of one faith? We shouldn't "see" a member as Jewish. Why should we see a chaplain as Jewish?
I am making some assumptions. A chaplain could be an atheist. I imagine some are. I don't think that belief is a requirement. However, it's likely a chaplain wearing the cross is Christian and thinks that non-Christians can look forward to eternal [darn]ation. Given that we embrace diversity, how can this not be an issue?
So, no, I don't think that chaplains should wear the insignia of their religious association for the same reason I don't think members should wear religious items not required as a matter of observance.
I see your point now; that's a good logic train. Thanks Damron.
How about this in return...
As far as Christian chaplain views on atheist service members, it matters not at all. Their mission is not to proselytize the atheist, but to serve those members who ARE ALREADY in a faith (their faith), as well as any troops that voluntarily approach them with issues.
So then, by way of analogy for the uniform issue, the military has medical officers, medical service corps officers, nursing officers, physiologists and so forth ad infinitum. They wear their branch and corps insignia, which identify them as "tech specialists" for a consult. By then identifying chaplains by faith specialization they are coded by their KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities). Having this new badge (however it looks) is part of that and then becomes a de facto specialty ID for those seeking their faith tradition for a consult. If you need a doc, you see a doc. An physiologist for an altitude chamber requal, you go see one. Confession, an RC chaplain. High holy days worship, the Jewish chaplain, and so forth.
One size would not fit all, any more than tasking an avionics rating to fix the tail rotor assembly. That, in my view, is why we SHOULD see the chaplain as Jewish, as you say.
V/r
Spam
Quote from: Spam on December 08, 2016, 06:22:14 PM
So then, by way of analogy for the uniform issue, the military has medical officers, medical service corps officers, nursing officers, physiologists and so forth ad infinitum. They wear their branch and corps insignia, which identify them as "tech specialists" for a consult. By then identifying chaplains by faith specialization they are coded by their KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities). Having this new badge (however it looks) is part of that and then becomes a de facto specialty ID for those seeking their faith tradition for a consult. If you need a doc, you see a doc. An physiologist for an altitude chamber requal, you go see one. Confession, an RC chaplain. High holy days worship, the Jewish chaplain, and so forth.
1 - Comparing the CAP situation to the military fails as CAP is not a 24x7x365 situation and people can seek out their own medical and religious professionals.
2 - No one is finding a Chaplain, Dr, or EMT based on their badge (as has bee asserted here before) anymore then they are staffing missions based on badges.
There are specific credentials, currency, and qualifications irrespective of badges worn, especially since they badges aren't even mandatory on at least 1/2 the uniforms.
I have no issue, per se with them, they just aren't relevent to CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 08, 2016, 07:19:48 PM
<snip>
I have no issue, per se with them, they just aren't relevent to CAP.
And on that note, we differ. CAP Chaplains have a place and a role in this organization. On this we can trade war stories, anecdotal accounts, philosophical opinions and viewpoints...ad nauseam. You have your opinion/viewpoint and I have mine. And I will continue to do my best (as I have for the past 20+ years) in the role of a CAP Chaplain to serve the commander whose staff I am fortunate to serve on and to serve the members of CAP (and their families) with whom I am entrusted.
Quote from: Chappie on December 08, 2016, 06:48:47 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 07, 2016, 10:58:00 PM
<snip>
If you could, I would appreciate clarification on the CSS prerequisite. Why the CDI requirement? Why should a member wanting to support the Mission Chaplain role as a Chaplain Support Specialist have to be appointed as a CDI first? CDI has nothing to do with Emergency Services and everything to do with Cadet Programs. I can think of members who are not CDI, but would probably like to pursue the CSS qualification. Thank you for any information you can provide.
Answer came: the CSS rating is created/designed for Chaplain Corps personnel so that Chaplains/CDIs can form a Chaplain Support Team. Many CDIs had expressed a desire to assist Chaplains in handling administrative/logistical duties that might distract the Chaplain...should the Chaplain be engaged in other matters, the CDI can sit in on briefings. There is the MSA rating that others can pursue who are not members of the Chaplain Corps (in fact, that is one of my secondary ES ratings).
Thank you for responding to my question. I think I see the disconnect here. While CDIs are part of the Chaplain Corps (at least on paper), the reality is that many CDIs, if not the majority, don't work directly with Chaplains, but as part of the Cadet Programs staff.
I would venture to say that that's probably the primary motivation, if not only, for members to seek CDI appointment. Considering the CDI scope is limited to Cadet Character Development using a pre-approved curriculum, and that their training and education is limited to that, I don't believe their appointment makes them more qualified or suitable than other members to pursue CSS qualification. In fact, I suspect the CDI requirement will prevent good, suitable candidates from becoming CSS, and force others to seek CDI appointment even though they may have no interest in instructing Character Development.
All that being said, I have no issues with the specialty and can even see it's merits. I just don't agree with the CDI prerequisite.
4. Character Development Instructors.
a. CDIs are a part of the CAP Chaplain Corps and are appointed to provide character development instruction in the cadet program. CDIs will only use Character Development material approved by the CAP Chief of Chaplains and provided on-line through the National Headquarters website.
b. The CDI works under the direction of a chaplain designated by the wing chaplain.
c. Commanders will make character development instruction available during cadet meetings per guidance in CAPR 52-16 paragraph 1-7 d.
d. CDIs will not use the title "Chaplain" nor wear chaplain insignia. When duly appointed and upon completion of the Character Development Specialty track at the technician level, CDIs may wear the specialty badge.
e. When working under the guidance of a chaplain, CDIs may provide non-clergy support for chaplain professional ministry. CAP members may offer non-denominational prayers in the absence of a unit chaplain.
f. CAP members who are ordained ministers serving in the capacity of CDI are not granted confidentiality or privileged communication in CAP
According to the above section of the CAPR 265-1, there is a direct connection between CDIs and Chaplains. The new ES rating is based upon that relationship between CDIs and Chaplains. The development of the ES rating was in response to many CDIs who expressed a desire to work with the Mission Chaplain in the ES environment. As mentioned in my previous posting, there is the MSA rating that non-CDIs could pursue.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 04:40:17 AM
According to the above section of the CAPR 265-1, there is a direct connection between CDIs and Chaplains.
Yes, but it's the super-secret clause "f", known only to the Illuminati, where the real power lies.
These secrets and more are exposed in the new Tom Hanks thriller "Inferno", playing now in a theater near you!
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 04:52:26 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 04:40:17 AM
According to the above section of the CAPR 265-1, there is a direct connection between CDIs and Chaplains.
Yes, but it's the super-secret clause "f", known only to the Illuminati, where the real power lies.
These secrets and more are exposed in the new Tom Hanks thriller "Inferno", playing now in a theater near you!
I see you caught my terrible "copy and paste" job on the first go-around. The secret clause "f" now longer exists :( However, I am looking forward to seeing what secrets and more about the CAP Chaplain Corps will be exposed in the new movie release. Hopefully, I can be further enlightened on the inner workings of the CAP Chaplain Corps. nod nod ;) ;)
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 04:40:17 AM
4. Character Development Instructors.
a. CDIs are a part of the CAP Chaplain Corps and are appointed to provide character development instruction in the cadet program. CDIs will only use Character Development material approved by the CAP Chief of Chaplains and provided on-line through the National Headquarters website.
b. The CDI works under the direction of a chaplain designated by the wing chaplain.
c. Commanders will make character development instruction available during cadet meetings per guidance in CAPR 52-16 paragraph 1-7 d.
d. CDIs will not use the title "Chaplain" nor wear chaplain insignia. When duly appointed and upon completion of the Character Development Specialty track at the technician level, CDIs may wear the specialty badge.
e. When working under the guidance of a chaplain, CDIs may provide non-clergy support for chaplain professional ministry. CAP members may offer non-denominational prayers in the absence of a unit chaplain.
f. CAP members who are ordained ministers serving in the capacity of CDI are not granted confidentiality or privileged communication in CAP
According to the above section of the CAPR 265-1, there is a direct connection between CDIs and Chaplains. The new ES rating is based upon that relationship between CDIs and Chaplains. The development of the ES rating was in response to many CDIs who expressed a desire to work with the Mission Chaplain in the ES environment. As mentioned in my previous posting, there is the MSA rating that non-CDIs could pursue.
I'm very familiar with the regulation. Reality, however, is another thing. How can a CDI work under the direction of a Chaplain when one is not always readily available to provide direction? In my wing, for example, less that 18% of units have an active Chaplain. In my group, that number is 14%. My experience is that most members become CDIs not because they want to be part of the Chaplain Corps, but because they can't instruct Character Development, a requirement of the Cadet Programs, without the appointment. CAPR 52-16, Para. 1-7d(2)(b) only allows Unit Commanders to "temporarily lead character forums", hence the CDI appointment becomes a requirement when a chaplain is not available.
Most CDIs I've encountered are Cadet Programs Officers who sought the appointment because otherwise they couldn't meet the Character Development requirement. I'm sure some CDIs genuinely want to work hand-in-hand with Chaplains, but I believe many, if not most, just want to work with cadets. If that's the case, then the Chaplain Corps may not be able to recruit members for CSS qualification in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Or, those who really want to serve in that capacity may be forced to seek CDI appointment event if they had not motivation to do so before.
A better approach, in my opinion, would be to open the CSS qualification to any member who's interested. That's how every other ES qualification (Logistics, Communications, Safety, Operations, etc.) works. Why should CSS be any different?
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I've had great experience with Chaplains and do see their value in the organization. I also see the merits of this qualification, although I'm still not convinced about the CDI requirement. Either way, I wish the program well.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 09, 2016, 06:36:54 AMMost CDIs I've encountered are Cadet Programs Officers who sought the appointment because otherwise they couldn't meet the Character Development requirement.
I believe our experiences are similar, however I have also seen a significant number of CDIs who consider themselves chaplain substitutes. Everything from leading prayers prior to an activity to insisting they should counsel a homesick cadet at encampment because of their CDI designation.
Linking CDIs to this new ES chaplain support qualification is not going to help stem the chaplain-lite problem. While on paper, a CDI is supposed to work under a chaplain, they typically exist because there is no chaplain available. So folks become CDIs either to meet the requirements to provide character discussions or because they think they can fill in for the chaplain. While the second group, while blatantly misappropriating the purpose of being a CDI, may be your target audience for the new ES support position. The first group definitely isn't.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 09, 2016, 06:36:54 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 04:40:17 AM
4. Character Development Instructors.
a. CDIs are a part of the CAP Chaplain Corps and are appointed to provide character development instruction in the cadet program. CDIs will only use Character Development material approved by the CAP Chief of Chaplains and provided on-line through the National Headquarters website.
b. The CDI works under the direction of a chaplain designated by the wing chaplain.
c. Commanders will make character development instruction available during cadet meetings per guidance in CAPR 52-16 paragraph 1-7 d.
d. CDIs will not use the title "Chaplain" nor wear chaplain insignia. When duly appointed and upon completion of the Character Development Specialty track at the technician level, CDIs may wear the specialty badge.
e. When working under the guidance of a chaplain, CDIs may provide non-clergy support for chaplain professional ministry. CAP members may offer non-denominational prayers in the absence of a unit chaplain.
f. CAP members who are ordained ministers serving in the capacity of CDI are not granted confidentiality or privileged communication in CAP
According to the above section of the CAPR 265-1, there is a direct connection between CDIs and Chaplains. The new ES rating is based upon that relationship between CDIs and Chaplains. The development of the ES rating was in response to many CDIs who expressed a desire to work with the Mission Chaplain in the ES environment. As mentioned in my previous posting, there is the MSA rating that non-CDIs could pursue.
I'm very familiar with the regulation. Reality, however, is another thing. How can a CDI work under the direction of a Chaplain when one is not always readily available to provide direction? In my wing, for example, less that 18% of units have an active Chaplain. In my group, that number is 14%. My experience is that most members become CDIs not because they want to be part of the Chaplain Corps, but because they can't instruct Character Development, a requirement of the Cadet Programs, without the appointment. CAPR 52-16, Para. 1-7d(2)(b) only allows Unit Commanders to "temporarily lead character forums", hence the CDI appointment becomes a requirement when a chaplain is not available.
The mechanism is found in the CAPR 265-1. The Wing Chaplain, for all intents and purposes, is the "go-to-guy". From the initial application process to appointment, the CDI and the Wing Chaplain have connected. The Wing Chaplain, per CAPR 265-1, designates a chaplain who works with the CDI. There are other resources readily available to the CDI (attendance at Wing Conferences/CCRSC/Facebook groups for the Chaplain Corps personnel/etc.). Your observation about many members becoming CDIs -- not to become part of the Chaplain Corps but to instruct Character Development is partially correct as many members do want to be part of the Chaplain Corps. It's an interesting mix :) The appointment of a CDI to facilitate the sessions is a way to provide accountability that Character Development would be conducted in the manner it is designed for. For years, the Chaplain Corps heard of squadrons where Character Development was not being presented...or if conducted, was treated more like a "safety briefing" where someone would basically take a couple of minutes and remind cadets to follow the Core Values or "play nicely with others". The current Chief and members of the CCEC began looking at the CDI position and the program and made significant changes. First in the appointment requirements of a CDI: a recommendation letter from someone other than their squadron commander (that takes place on the F35A) and the completion of TLC Basic (since they are working with Cadets) as well as the Basic Instructor Course. Secondly, the 225 Specialty Track for CDIs was another item that needed attention. It had not been updated since 2001 (and IMHO was woeful). The Chief established a task force that consisted of CDIs to develop the current (Feb 16) guide. This was their "baby".
Most CDIs I've encountered are Cadet Programs Officers who sought the appointment because otherwise they couldn't meet the Character Development requirement. I'm sure some CDIs genuinely want to work hand-in-hand with Chaplains, but I believe many, if not most, just want to work with cadets. If that's the case, then the Chaplain Corps may not be able to recruit members for CSS qualification in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Or, those who really want to serve in that capacity may be forced to seek CDI appointment event if they had not motivation to do so before.
That is an universal matter in CAP....even though the organization is committed to a three-fold mission, members are free to pick and choose what they want (or don't want to do). There are chaplains who don't want to work at encampments -- but will teach CD in the squadron; don't want to do ES but want to AE or another PD specialty track; don't want to progress in the Professional Development program and take on higher level responsibilities...we have chaplains who are pilots and love to provide O-rides. What is true of chaplains can probably be said of senior members as well. We are not looking to recruit members for CSS qualification, rather we are providing them the opportunity to serve in a capacity they desire to do so. For several years, not all Chaplains were ES qualified. That issue was addressed in the CAPP 221 (April 11) when obtaining a GES rating was required for their Technician rating. However, not all Chaplains are Mission Chaplain rated.
A better approach, in my opinion, would be to open the CSS qualification to any member who's interested. That's how every other ES qualification (Logistics, Communications, Safety, Operations, etc.) works. Why should CSS be any different?
I will pass on your observations to the task force that is developing the new ES ratings for their consideration.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I've had great experience with Chaplains and do see their value in the organization. I also see the merits of this qualification, although I'm still not convinced about the CDI requirement. Either way, I wish the program well.''
Appreciate your input and support.
How is the actual inspection finding going to be addressed for the majority of CAP Chaplains who won't attend NESA?
Is this actually a "problem", or does this check box fill the USAF's check box and everyone moves on?
I would imagine mandating the missing training would require an update to 265-1 as Chaplain appointments today
require no internal CAP training.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 05:57:53 PM
How is the actual inspection finding going to be addressed for the majority of CAP Chaplains who won't attend NESA?
Is this actually a "problem", or does this check box fill the USAF's check box and everyone moves on?
I would imagine mandating the missing training would require an update to 265-1 as Chaplain appointments today
require no internal CAP training.
NESA is but one venue for the training. A chaplain attending NESA can knock out all the requirements for the Mission Chaplain rating (s) in one week. Most of the courses required are FEMA courses which can be taken on-line. The uniquely CAP courses will be offered at CCRSC, Wing/Region Conferences (breakout sessions for the Chaplain Corps personnel), as well as on-line similar to other ES ratings. It will take a bit longer to attain the rating but is doable.
Having a GES rating is required of all Chaplains to attain their Technician Rating in the PD program....the Mission Chaplain rating for the Senior Rating in PD. Placing those requirements in the updated 221 was a means to help "motivate" more chaplains to get involved in ES...since it is part of CAP's mission. It does not need to be in the CAPR 265-1 as it is in the CAPP 221 -- and is needed to advance in CAP both in responsibility and grade.
Quote from: Fubar on December 09, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 09, 2016, 06:36:54 AMMost CDIs I've encountered are Cadet Programs Officers who sought the appointment because otherwise they couldn't meet the Character Development requirement.
I believe our experiences are similar, however I have also seen a significant number of CDIs who consider themselves chaplain substitutes. Everything from leading prayers prior to an activity to insisting they should counsel a homesick cadet at encampment because of their CDI designation.
Linking CDIs to this new ES chaplain support qualification is not going to help stem the chaplain-lite problem. While on paper, a CDI is supposed to work under a chaplain, they typically exist because there is no chaplain available. So folks become CDIs either to meet the requirements to provide character discussions or because they think they can fill in for the chaplain. While the second group, while blatantly misappropriating the purpose of being a CDI, may be your target audience for the new ES support position. The first group definitely isn't.
Let's take a look at the two examples of CDIs "who consider themselves chaplain substitutes":
Leading prayers -- Per the CAPR 265-1 Section B, Paragraph 4,item e.: CAP members may offer non-denominational prayers in the absence of a unit chaplain. In other words, offering prayers is not exclusive to chaplains. CDIs...as well as any CAP member is not restricted to offering a prayer at a CAP function.
Counseling homesick cadets at Encampment -- Per the CAPP 216 under Service Requirements (page 4):
"Cadet Programs Officer" is an umbrella term referring to any senior member whose primary focus is cadets. It is not a formal duty title. Most of the individuals serving in the roles below consider themselves to be Cadet Programs Officers. The service requirements are met by actively participating in one of these positions. It goes on to list 14 positions at the Squadron, Group, Wing, Region level including CDIs and Chaplains. So one can be a "Cadet Programs Officer", yet not have a rating in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track (personally, I have a Master rating in Cadet Programs and from my time as a Wing Chaplain in the dark ages until now, I have encouraged all members of the Chaplain Corps to at least obtain the Technician rating in the Cadet Programs specialty Track).
Per the CAPP 52-24 Cadet Encampment Guide, Part 4 - Training Officers, one of the Major Functional Areas include "personal counseling of cadets, as necessary" (3.f.)
I have been on Encampment staffs since 1997. From my observation, Training Officers (formerly called "Tactical Officers") consist of senior members, some who hold Cadet Programs ratings, some who hold CDI ratings, and others who don't. The Encampment Staff does not have a designated position as Encampment CDI...never has, never will. So to imagine, a CDI attending an encampment for the sole purpose of counseling cadets is far-fetched. A CDI at encampment cadets, would be doing so...not as a "Chaplain Substitute" or "Chaplain-Lite, but in their role/function as a "Cadet Programs Officer" (referring to the CAPP 216) or as a Training Officer or other designated staff position. From the encampment guide, counseling the students is not exclusive to the Encampment Chaplain(s). From my personal experience at the 16 encampments I have staffed, the Chaplain is usually the "last resort" when the Training Officer or other Encampment staff have exhausted their resources. The Training Officer or other Encampment Staff member seeks our advise on how to handle a situation or when they feel they can't reach the student, looks to us for additional help in the situation. On another note, I would not consider Training Officers at Encampment to be "Chaplain Substitutes" or "Chaplain-Lites" if they counsel students/cadets - Just sayin' And isn't "counseling" sometimes a part of the mentoring process between any two individuals -- whether or not they are CAP members or members of the clergy????
As for the new ES Chaplain Support qualification not helping to stem the "chaplain-lite" problem: The new qualification is exactly what it is called - Chaplain Support. The CDI will not obtain or ever qualify for the Mission Chaplain rating.
"Having a GES rating is required of all Chaplains to attain their Technician Rating in the PD program....the Mission Chaplain rating for the Senior Rating in PD. Placing those requirements in the updated 221 was a means to help "motivate" more chaplains to get involved in ES...since it is part of CAP's mission. "
Does it require chaplains to take the Yeager as well? It is after all, one of the missions. Couldn't hurt...but then if we are going to require chaplains to be present in all three missions, why not extend that to all specialties. Hope this isn't throwing this discussion off track, but if it's good for one specialty, it should be good for all.
Thawn...at one time attaining the Yeager was included in the Chaplain Training Track. However it was removed when Professional Development made attaining the Yeager as a requirement for Level III a few years ago. (Earned my Yeager in 2000). Since 2007, Chaplains no longer participate in the "Special Recognition Program" that exempted them from the Professional Development program (when I joined advancing was simple: you came in as a Technician...completing the 221 reading was in lieu of SLS/Level 2 and 221A was in lieu of CLC/Level 3...still needed to attend CCRSC <2 in five years since they are 20 hours in length> for Level 4 -- and breathing air for a length of time -- was all you needed to promote. That was until a bunch of us "young Turks" -- at the time we were younger -- felt that Chaplains needed the same PD training as Senior Members and pushed to have the SPR jettisoned and all Chaplains participate in the Professional Development program. Leading by example, I earned my GRW in 2001 -- one of 13 chaplains in the organization at that time to have earned the award. Since 2007, there are usually 5-7 chaplains who attend NSC and earn the GRW. I can go on about the number of Chaplains who attain the Davis, Loening, and Garber awards. No longer do we have a Wing Chaplain or Lt Col who has only completed Level 1).
On a side note....part of the curriculum for a Chaplain Corps Region Staff College involves AE. Most Region Chaplains/Directors of CCRSC would meet that segment of the curriculum with a base tour. Wipe hands...done. Back in the day (remember I am that "nice old guy" as Chaplains were referred to in a recent post - LOL) when I was a Region Chaplain...the Region (or Wing - depending on availability) AEO was part of my staff and conducted actual AE sessions/activities. It was a blast!!!
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 06:37:05 PM
Having a GES rating is required of all Chaplains to attain their Technician Rating in the PD program....the Mission Chaplain rating for the Senior Rating in PD. Placing those requirements in the updated 221 was a means to help "motivate" more chaplains to get involved in ES...since it is part of CAP's mission. It does not need to be in the CAPR 265-1 as it is in the CAPP 221 -- and is needed to advance in CAP both in responsibility and grade.
And none of the above, nor CCRSC, nor Wing Conferences, nor online training is currently required to be, or remain a "CAP Chaplain",
and those who >are< Chaplains, are already
deplorable deployable as augmentees absent any further training or requirements.
And that is what I see as part of the problem here - the USAF said "Our Chaplains have this training...the people CAP calls Chaplains, don't...fix it."
None of the above address the actual finding for the majority of CAP Chaplains who participate at the squadron aren't involved in ES, and have no interest
in progressing.
And to the progression point - 221 isn't the only rating a Chaplain could pursue for promotion, however in light of the fact that the majority
of Chaplains I've dealt with come in as Captains, coupled with the new progression requirements that will hold most members at Captain,
that sounds like an overestimation of the interest in progression as a means to forcing the training.
As of today, the average Chaplain who is already a Captain and not involved in ES has no requirement to complete any additional training,
nor fulfill the mandate of the USAF Finding. If he does his 34's, even only to turn one in to indicate "no traffic, over", he can remain a Chaplain.
Quote
...are already deplorable as augmentees...
Did you mean
deployable?
[Edited to add, after posting...]
Sorry-read the message once before posting.
I guess he does mean, as stating "they are not ready..."
And I think it needs to be asked again how the existence of CDIs at all made things "better"?
How, overnight, did it make things "better" that former cadet members now senior, cadets parents who are also members,
many with decades of decorated service, not to mention the any number of professional counselors (as I have in my unit),
medical professionals, military officers and NCOs, teachers, and just plain members with hard-won CAP and life experience
were barred from facilitating ML CDI in favor of the random unit CC who may, or may not, have any relevent experience
with adolescents or the CP but was silly enough to take the job?
And while my LPSC, those 30-year members, cadet moms, and others all have to have TLC to even be considered as CDIs,
the CC only has to have "respiration and gravitational attraction in proper proportion" to facilitate those sessions, assuming he does.
I can tell you from personal experience, and also based on back-channel discussions prompted by this thread, that the lack
of people authorized to facilitate CDI is holding back cadets all over the organizaiton for months or more because no sessions
are being held - CC is too busy and no one else can do it. Cadets are perishable in this regard, and I'm sure it has cost us retention,
yet NHQ seems to be unaware this is an issue.
Perhaps it is time to re-evaulate the "great experiment" and open CDI back up to a wider group of staff, or perhaps even better,
as part of the implementation of the CSS rating, create a new rating or qual of CP-CDI which is focused >only< on the CDI sessions
and / or counseling cadets in a secular fashion and leaving faith-based service to those so inclined without artificially limiting the
opportunities for those who aren't.
Side note: After reviewing 221, it is impossible to progress as a CDI without getting involved in support of the Chaplaincy
and in addition candidates have to research alternative faiths from their own. I have had this issue cited to me several times
as a reason otherwise excellent CP staff have no interest in CDI.
Like it or not, there are an increasing number of people who feel faith and religion is a personal thing that stays at home.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on December 09, 2016, 07:36:07 PM
Quote
...are already deplorable as augmentees...
Did you mean deployable?
[Edited to add, after posting...]
Sorry-read the message once before posting.
I guess he does mean, as stating "they are not ready..."
Heh - my Freudian Slip is showing...
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:24:04 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 06:37:05 PM
Having a GES rating is required of all Chaplains to attain their Technician Rating in the PD program....the Mission Chaplain rating for the Senior Rating in PD. Placing those requirements in the updated 221 was a means to help "motivate" more chaplains to get involved in ES...since it is part of CAP's mission. It does not need to be in the CAPR 265-1 as it is in the CAPP 221 -- and is needed to advance in CAP both in responsibility and grade.
And none of the above, nor CCRSC, nor Wing Conferences, nor online training is currently required to be, or remain a "CAP Chaplain",
and those who >are< Chaplains, are already deplorable as augmentees absent any further training or requirements.
And that is what I see as part of the problem here - the USAF said "Our Chaplains have this training...the people CAP calls Chaplains, don't...fix it."
None of the above address the actual finding for the majority of CAP Chaplains who participate at the squadron aren't involved in ES, and have no interest
in progressing.
And to the progression point - 221 isn't the only rating a Chaplain could pursue for promotion, however in light of the fact that the majority
of Chaplains I've dealt with come in as Captains, coupled with the new progression requirements that will hold most members at Captain,
that sounds like an overestimation of the interest in progression as a means to forcing the training.
As of today, the average Chaplain who is already a Captain and not involved in ES has no requirement to complete any additional training,
nor fulfill the mandate of the USAF Finding. If he does his 34's, even only to turn one in to indicate "no traffic, over", he can remain a Chaplain.
And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training. However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it. And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.
"However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it."
I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this, but remember that sentiment if you ever have to call on your local volunteer EMS or fire department....
I'm really, really sorry....
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 07:49:10 PMAnd we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training. However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it. And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.
Absolutely true, and making my point. You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.
In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:44:45 PM
<snip>
I can tell you from personal experience, and also based on back-channel discussions prompted by this thread, that the lack
of people authorized to facilitate CDI is holding back cadets all over the organizaiton for months or more because no sessions
are being held - CC is too busy and no one else can do it. Cadets are perishable in this regard, and I'm sure it has cost us retention,
yet NHQ seems to be unaware this is an issue.
<snip>
Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD???? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel. One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development.
On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program. As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 07:49:10 PMAnd we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training. However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it. And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.
Absolutely true, and making my point. You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.
In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.
The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets . Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???
Quote from: THRAWN on December 09, 2016, 07:52:42 PM
"However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it."
I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this, but remember that sentiment if you ever have to call on your local volunteer EMS or fire department....
I'm really, really sorry....
I know...I hated saying it. CAP members should see themselves as Volunteer Professionals. Been in this organization long enough to see members who only like to wear the uniforms and get the recognition but offer little in the way of service. Commitment is something that involves one's character.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:44:45 PM
<snip> Side note: After reviewing 221, it is impossible to progress as a CDI without getting involved in support of the Chaplaincy
and in addition candidates have to research alternative faiths from their own. I have had this issue cited to me several times
as a reason otherwise excellent CP staff have no interest in CDI.
Like it or not, there are an increasing number of people who feel faith and religion is a personal thing that stays at home. <snip>
That is part of the Senior and Master Ratings for the CDI (most CDIs have other ratings that qualify them for promotion...and from what I have observed, there are very few CDIs whose sole specialty track is the 225 track). One may ask, why is this a part of CDI training? CAP is a pluralistic group. There are people of faith -- various groups and flavors...no faith...don't want no faith. At the senior and master level of a CDIs career, having exposure to another person's world view is helpful in working through the dynamics of a pluralistic community. One may not and doesn't have to agree with the tenets...but to have a cursory understanding of where that person is coming from could be valuable.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 07:49:10 PMAnd we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training. However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it. And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.
Absolutely true, and making my point. You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.
In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.
The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets . Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???
That's an unnecessary and defensive straw man - we're discussing the Chaplaincy right now, and specifically CAP's response to a
USAF inspection finding.
There is currently no mass-casualty training for the rest of CAP ES, but the Chaplains need it, despite their very limited presence in CAP missions?
From myh readin of the finding, the issue isn't a CAP-ES problem, but a USAF augmentee issue, and this doesn't fix the problem.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 08:58:20 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 07:49:10 PMAnd we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training. However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do. We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it. And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.
Absolutely true, and making my point. You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.
In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.
The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets . Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???
That's an unnecessary and defensive straw man - we're discussing the Chaplaincy right now, and specifically CAP's response to a
USAF inspection finding.
There is currently no mass-casualty training for the rest of CAP ES, but the Chaplains need it, despite their very limited presence in CAP missions?
From myh readin of the finding, the issue isn't a CAP-ES problem, but a USAF augmentee issue, and this doesn't fix the problem.
And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training. Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs. The new ES rating for Mission Chaplains will have three levels:
CAP Support - for the CAP missions
Disaster Support - for those occasions when CAP Chaplains will be functioning with outside agencies (not reporting to CAP ICs)
Air Force Support - working as a force multiplier
The former MC rating was difficult for most chaplains to obtain. The design of this new rating -- with its 3 tiers - is to provide doable ES training to handle what level they wish to engage -- primarily CAP missions. Not every Chaplain can or wants to take a week or more to work an incident like "Deepwater Horizon"... or live in the proximity of an AF base to provide services. So rather than a "one-size fits all" approach, we are endeavoring to provide the training for the nature of the mission. It will be an educational process and will take some time to get it up and running...but it will happen. As with anything in CAP, it will not take place overnight. The Chaplain Corps does not have a staff at NHQ doing the heavy lifting -- like Ops, Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education -- we have to depend on our volunteers to do the work...and they have. The current Chief assumed the reins in August of 2014 and there have been significant changes/progress made under his leadership -- and still more in the pipeline. Hopefully, we can see the majority of it accomplished before he completes his term.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 09:50:38 PM
And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training. Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs.
And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to the RSC?
Chaplain's are already force multipliers by requirement and design, absent the NESA school.
I'm not trying to be obtuse about this, that's the reality.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 09:50:38 PM
And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training. Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs.
And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to the RSC?
Chaplain's are already force multipliers by requirement and design, absent the NESA school.
I'm not trying to be obtuse about this, that's the reality.
The finding was that "Mass Casualty" as a course/topic was not part of the USAF/CAP Chaplain Corps training -- so the course was included in 2009 CCRSC forward. It has been offered at break-out sessions during wing and region conferences. Training in this can be found on-line (https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-360) . Welcome to a changing world :( Consequently, that aspect has been included in courses dealing with emergency responses in the years that have followed. So...to answer the question "And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to RSC - CCRSC?", the training is made available through CAP and non-CAP sources.
Not all CAP Chaplains are force multipliers...there are certain requirements for that listed in the CAPR 265-1. The training in new MC rating (the advanced/third level) provides the CAP chaplain what is needed for that particular mission - Air Force Support. I am a "waivered" chaplain, in that I received my post-baccalaureate degree from a school not listed in the ACE directory (approved by DoD). Not a problem...I have had enough on my plate as a CAP Chaplain over my career without wanting or needing to assist the USAF Chaplain Corps. Again NESA is but one venue...it is not required to take the courses/training in Indiana since there will be other opportunities to obtain the training. As stated in previous postings, the NESA experience will enable the Chaplain Corps personnel to knock out the required work for the various ratings during the NESA session -- as well as providing them with the opportunity/experience of working with other ES personnel as they will participate in ES scenarios throughout the week. The member of the Chaplain Corps can take courses on-line and the uniquely CAP Courses will be offered during CCRSC, wing/region conferences breakout sessions, week-end schools, online...which will take a little longer to attain a rating but is very doable (and affordable).
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:19:34 PM
Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD???? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel. One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development.
Two issues with those numbers - first out of context there is no way to know how many were lost during that same time period, or how many
of those are double-billeted CC's who are forced to become CDIs to comply with program mandates, or who were the only one in their unit with TLC, etc.
There are also any number of units with more then one Chaplain, not to mention 4 echelons about the unit which may have no, or limited exposure to
cadets where these Chaplains and CDIs are assigned.
But more importantly, there already
was "100% coverage" before facilitators were artificially limited by the CDI program.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:19:34 PM
On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program. As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on.
I fail to see how having an appointed CDI, per se changes the accountability in any way other then from the optics. The program is the same, the
record keeping is the same, as is the higher HQ oversight (or lack thereof). Someone else may have, but I never said CC's were penciling whipping
the sessions, what I said was, they simply aren't doing them, primarily due to lack of availability.
So in a room full of otherwise highly qualified people, he's the only one who can run the session, and he's in Prague, or at a Wing staff meeting that conflicts, or
maybe deployed to a Hurricane, or flying O-Rides, or whatever other lame excuse he made up.
IMHO CC's ignoring CDI is unacceptable, but there you go, with the end result being months or longer with cadets unable to progress and no way to make up that time later.
I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely
on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation, there's no way to logically explain how this is "better".
1 - CDI is required for cadets to progress.
2 - CAP cannot mandate anyone serve in that role, nor grow more people (vs. the military which can do both).
Membership is continuing to shrink resulting in less people who have to do more each year.
3 - CAP, as an organization, limited who can provide CDI, yet didn't actually mandate any education or training to
insure the sessions and facilitators were "better", but simply insured the program remained under the control of the Chaplain Corps for assignment.
4 - CAP added the insinuation of, if not outright requirement, of additional, unrelated duties to those otherwise highly qualified members who wish to provide CDI to cadets.
5 - CAP now wonders why CDI isn't happening and Commanders and staff are grumbling.
The logic and math of the above doesn't compute, and the main reason it doesn't is because the underlying factors
for the way it was implemented were factors external to the mission-mandate at hand.
It's also disappointing, but not atypical, that an NHQ plan to makes things "better", results in lower levels of execution
and makes the CC's job harder.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2016, 11:36:51 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:19:34 PM
Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD???? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel. One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development.
Two issues with those numbers - first out of context there is no way to know how many were lost during that same time period, or how many
of those are double-billeted CC's who are forced to become CDIs to comply with program mandates, or who were the only one in their unit with TLC, etc.
There are also any number of units with more then one Chaplain, not to mention 4 echelons about the unit which may have no, or limited exposure to
cadets where these Chaplains and CDIs are assigned.
But more importantly, there already was "100% coverage" before facilitators were artificially limited by the CDI program.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 08:19:34 PM
On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program. As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on.
I fail to see how having an appointed CDI, per se changes the accountability in any way other then from the optics. The program is the same, the
record keeping is the same, as is the higher HQ oversight (or lack thereof). Someone else may have, but I never said CC's were penciling whipping
the sessions, what I said was, they simply aren't doing them, primarily due to lack of availability.
So in a room full of otherwise highly qualified people, he's the only one who can run the session, and he's in Prague, or at a Wing staff meeting that conflicts, or
maybe deployed to a Hurricane, or flying O-Rides, or whatever other lame excuse he made up.
IMHO CC's ignoring CDI is unacceptable, but there you go, with the end result being months or longer with cadets unable to progress and no way to make up that time later.
I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely
on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation, there's no way to logically explain how this is "better".
1 - CDI is required for cadets to progress.
2 - CAP cannot mandate anyone serve in that role, nor grow more people (vs. the military which can do both).
Membership is continuing to shrink resulting in less people who have to do more each year.
3 - CAP, as an organization, limited who can provide CDI, yet didn't actually mandate any education or training to
insure the sessions and facilitators were "better", but simply insured the program remained under the control of the Chaplain Corps for assignment.
4 - CAP added the insinuation of, if not outright requirement, of additional, unrelated duties to those otherwise highly qualified members who wish to provide CDI to cadets.
5 - CAP now wonders why CDI isn't happening and Commanders and staff are grumbling.
The logic and math of the above doesn't compute, and the main reason it doesn't is because the underlying factors
for the way it was implemented were factors external to the mission-mandate at hand.
It's also disappointing, but not atypical, that an NHQ plan to makes things "better", results in lower levels of execution
and makes the CC's job harder.
I appreciate and understand your comment about the numbers of appointments. I provided raw numbers to point out that in the past 2 years the number of "appointed" Chaplain Corps personnel has increased dramatically. In response to comments/concerns from the field regarding the appointment of CDIs, there were significant changes in the CAPR 265-1 to faciliate the requirement of having an appointed CDI or Chaplain conduct the CD session (CAPR 52-16). While your observation about the "100% coverage" prior to the "artificial limitation" might seem legitimate, for clarification purposes, my intention was to state that the goal of the Chaplain Corps is to provide 100% coverage by "appointed" CDIs and Chaplains. This would take the burden/responsibility off the shoulders of the Squadron CC who does not have a CDI or Chaplain in their squadron.
As for the aspect of accountability, I did not infer that you stated Squadron CCs were "pencil whipping". I was simply citing reports heard over the years from those in the field -- wing commanders, senior members, cadets -- regarding the laxness in the conducting of the CD program. While it may appear that the program may be the same or that the changes may be optic, there are things in the works to make record keeping of a cadet's participation online -- as to who taught what lesson, date, where, etc. (accountability).
There are a couple of wings that are testing conducting CD via tele-conferencing for those cadets who have a legitimate reason for not making a meeting or if the scenario you presented occurs, where the person qualified to teach is unable to make the meeting.
Now let's see about these items:
1. True - always has and will be.
2. True - but that does not stop us from recruiting or providing resources for those who want to take on a noble task :)
3. Not quite sure I agree - Under the leadership of the current Chief, with the various task forces established to improve the Chaplain Corps, there has been a revised/updated (basically, new) Specialty Track for CDIs. For appointment, CDIs now have to have TLC - basic and the Basic Instructor's Course. It may not be much for the moment, but it was more than we had required in standardized training before. And it is in keeping with the requirement that cadet/composite squadrons have at least 2 people trained in TLC (we are helping achieve that ;) ). Look for online and video training for Chaplain Corps personnel in the future....it is in the works.
4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.
5. Depends on what voices you are listening to. In any given situation, you can hear the voices of those who are grumbling or the voices of those who approve. I hear both :( :)
Quote from: Chappie on December 10, 2016, 12:44:14 AM
4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.
The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.
They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.
And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?
And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 10, 2016, 12:44:14 AM
4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.
The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.
They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.
And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?
And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?
In a previous post you wrote, "I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation..."
In this discourse, I have not felt like I have been on the defensive...rather I feel like having served in senior leadership positions of the CAP Chaplain Corps and have been included in discussions, served on committees/task forces, there are certain things that I have knowledge of and hopefully can bring some clarification or explanation.
The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.A question and an observation: Do you read anywhere in the regs that after the initial appointment, that the CDI is required to pursue the specialty track ratings???? Is it possible to be a CDI and not pursue the ratings???? At what rating does any of the "religious support aspects" kick in (hint: it is not Technician when they can wear the badge). Would you say that the otherwise highly qualified folk you speak of have other specialty ratings that they have already have attained Senior or Master ratings....I know that I personally have 3 Master ratings in 3 Specialty Tracks (Cadet Programs, Chaplain, Professional Development).
They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support. A couple of things: There is no "chain of command" in the Chaplain Corps. Chaplains and CDIs are members of the Commander's Staff. As with CAP publications...there are the regs and the pamphlets/manuals that flesh out the process. Read them together and there is a reasonable answer/explanation:
CAPP 265-1 Section B, Paragraph 4 item b. The CDI
works under the direction of a chaplain designated by the wing chaplain.
Air Patrol. (NOTE: does not say "report to a chaplain") and CAPP 216: Study each section and apply the information to actual situations on the job.
The wing chaplain will assign a chaplain as a mentor to assist the CDI through the process. If needed, an on-the-job training (OJT) supervisor can also be assigned to guide the CDI on a more local level. Your OJT supervisor will determine your level of proficiency at each level. When you reach the desired level of competency for the completion of a level, the unit commander will certify proficiency in your personnel record through eServices. After the unit commander's certification of a technician, senior, or master rating, the member may wear the Leadership Ribbon (technician rating) with bronze (senior rating) or silver (master rating) star. Completion of each rating is a requirement for promotion. Complete promotion criteria are listed in CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and Noncommissioned Officer Appointments and Promotions.
The CDI has to have a Squadron CC sign the F35A....the CDI is on the Commander's Staff as is the Chaplain. The Chaplain reports to Commander. Chaplains do not authority to promote members, discipline members, etc. However Chaplains are in a good position to know the workings of the Chaplaincy (which is foreign to the typical member -- and often the Commander) and can serve as a guide, mentor to the CDI -- but is not one to give directives, unless approved by the Commander. Thus the need for a good working relationship with the Commander.
As for providing "religious support", refer to the first comment.
And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?There are only 3 layers: The first step is the Wing Chaplain. Besides receiving and reviewing the application, the wing chaplain completes an interview which will seek to determine the candidate's understanding of the role of a character development instructor and ascertain their willingness to work in a pluralistic environment. This is necessary to make sure that CDI is aware of the biggest offense that you and others have voiced about members of the Chaplain Corps: the use of the CD session as a pulpit or proselytizing. The packet is sent to the Region Chaplain who makes sure that the packet is prepared properly and all the necessary documentation is in place (you can't believe how many times a packet has been returned for either lack of documentation or signatures). Finally the Chief grants appointment. Why is it necessary? That's the process lined out in the CAPR 265-1.
Quote from: Chappie on December 09, 2016, 06:44:47 PMLet's take a look at the two examples of CDIs "who consider themselves chaplain substitutes":
Chappie, I think I failed to communicate my point. Your examples that anybody and lead a prayer and anybody can help counsel a cadet missed that in the cases I've experienced (and described), a CDI felt they were either the only person qualified to perform either example or at the very least, felt they were more qualified than non-CDIs to perform either example (even though CDI requires no actual qualification related to being a chaplain).
So that's one of the problems with the CDI program. The other is it's an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on squadrons and their members. There is absolutely
no reason that character development within the cadet program needs to be the responsibility of another OPR. We allow anybody the CC designates to manage the aerospace education, leadership lessons, physical fitness, drill, but not character development. We can't trust the CC with chasing the right person?
To be a senior member in CAP, one must be: an adult; pass a background check; and follow the rules, regulations, and core values of the organization.
This means that ANY senior member in CAP should be automatically qualified to lead a CDI lesson as they must already follow these concepts before they could join while also maintaining those concepts as a member. To force a member to enroll into the CDI specialty track, as Eclipse stated, puts an artificial limitation on a required component of the Cadet Programs.
If you really want to force a standard to be a CDI, require that the member has at minimum a technician rating in the Cadet Program specialty track. However, I will argue that this is still unnecessary and artificial as the entire concept of a senior member is one who has already shown they are able to follow a life of integrity.
A commander is already eligible to lead a CDI lesson in absence of someone trained for that task, but we do not allow them to delegate that required task to someone they feel is qualified. The big question for me then becomes: do we trust our commanders, or not? (And if not, why have we allowed them to become a commander?)
The answer becomes clear: we trust the commander to delegate whomever they feel is appropriate to lead the CDI lesson, as they are already qualified in being a stand in CDI themselves and therefore must know who would also be a good CDI. It's time to remove the CDI specialty track and remove the artificial limitation that we place on our cadets.
- Hyperion
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 10, 2016, 12:44:14 AM
4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.
The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.
They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.
And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?
And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?
Hallelujah, can I get a witness?
Quote from: Hyperion on December 10, 2016, 12:38:04 PM
It's time to remove the CDI specialty track and remove the artificial limitation that we place on our cadets.
Wait a second, don't chaplains have a more accurate moral and ethical compass than the rest of us? Of course not.
Most of our chaplains are not licensed pastoral counselors or other licensed mental health professional. So, are they really qualified to provide any better advice than any other member?
Without any thought, we are supposed to accept chaplains as wise sages with special gifts based on their completion of a degree program with extremely narrow focus, much like an English literature degree that chooses to study just one book.
A couple of folks have mentioned mass-casualty events as justification for expanding the role and training of our chaplains. Given their lack of counseling training in general and grief counseling in particular, how is anybody confident of positive outcomes? I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some.
CAP chaplaincy survives as a result of the inertia of tradition and the reluctance of most to voice an opinion on the role and future of chaplaincy in CAP.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 12:17:35 AM
...I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some....
Really? In my time in CAP, I have NEVER seen a Chaplain exhibit that sort of behavior. Ever.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 11, 2016, 01:36:35 AM
Really? In my time in CAP, I have NEVER seen a Chaplain exhibit that sort of behavior. Ever.
Consider yourself lucky.
#shoutingmatch #BTDT
Quote from: SarDragon on December 11, 2016, 01:36:35 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 12:17:35 AM
...I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some....
Really? In my time in CAP, I have NEVER seen a Chaplain exhibit that sort of behavior. Ever.
The context I suggested was a mass-casualty event. My question is, what's their role in a mass-casualty event? They don't have training or licensing in clinical counseling. So, what's left? Pastoral counseling? Very few chaplains are licensed pastoral counselors and pastoral counselors invoke doctrine. So, what's left? Pastoral skills? You can't pastor without reference to religious doctrine. I can't imagine a pastor not invoking their faith to comfort others if that's the only tool on their belt, or collar. So, what's left? Skills learned through CAP training? Inadequate. Why don't we start training medical providers if it's that easy.
It sounds like we need more LPCC's, LCSW's, psychiatrists, and psychologists if we have a need for secular counseling and grief counseling in disaster scenarios.
So, we recruit chaplains with religious ordination in at least one faith in which proselytizing is a tenet. Then, we don't let them proselytize and then give them roles that anybody could perform or roles that they are professionally unqualified for.
So, in the case of a mass-casualty event, a Christian chaplain should announce, "Hey everybody, I'm not a counseling professional but if you are a follower of the faith represented on my collar I might be able to use the doctrine of your faith to provide comfort. It rarely works for emergeant situations but that's all I got. You might want to talk to a CISM officer. They haven't been to NESA but they are professionals. We probably should have recruited more professionals for that role but somebody thought we would be perfect for mass-casualty events when we are really better prepared to give prayers at change of commands".
Eventually, we are going to have a cadet kill themself when we recommend they speak to a chaplain and instead of telling the chaplain they are homesick they reveal they are gay, transgendered, pregnant, or depressed and aren't refered to a professional or parent. It could happen and we are creating the conditions for it to happen. Our chaplains are describing themselves as counselors and seeking the confidence of those in their counsel by promising priest-penitent privilege. What would the parents of cadets think of that?
If we believe what chaplains are telling us, they really should be a CISM asset.
Hi Damron. Interesting points, thanks.
Are you perhaps mixing metaphors though, between three issues: (1) underlying pervasive disorders and sequelae (e.g. pregnancy), (2) encampment stress related anxiety and (3) mass casualty incident stress?
Perhaps you're right and "professional" medical help is the correct answer at all times for case 1 instead of chaplains. The huge suicide rate among those with transgender disorders (since you bring them up) speaks to how successful the MD/PhD community is with the current "celebrate, operate and medicate" line of "therapy" (TM) as opposed to working from the assumption that something is broken (rather than to be celebrated). Yet, even if we had them, that's not CAP's mission. We should stay OUT of such issues, leaving them to the parents. So, case 1 is OFF LIMITS for CAP.
If you're thinking case 2 (encampments) are therapy venues for case 1, I certainly don't think that's within the scope of the program of record. Unit commanders shouldn't be sending such corner cases to encampment in the first place. Cadets THAT seriously burdened need to be sent home ASAP - not provided therapy, regardless of the provider. We are not a primary care provider! What is under discussion here is case 3 - the mass casualty issue.
At any rate, Damron, I think this level of counseling/therapy for cadets is NOT something CAP should be dealing with. with cadets and especially in encampment settings. I think you and I might agree on that? Then, perhaps we might agree that chaplains (and HSOs, and all officers) should know their limitations?
R/
Spam
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 02:46:45 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 11, 2016, 01:36:35 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 12:17:35 AM
...I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some....
Really? In my time in CAP, I have NEVER seen a Chaplain exhibit that sort of behavior. Ever.
The context I suggested was a mass-casualty event. My question is, what's their role in a mass-casualty event? They don't have training or licensing in clinical counseling. So, what's left? Pastoral counseling? Very few chaplains are licensed pastoral counselors and pastoral counselors invoke doctrine. So, what's left? Pastoral skills? You can't pastor without reference to religious doctrine. I can't imagine a pastor not invoking their faith to comfort others if that's the only tool on their belt, or collar. So, what's left? Skills learned through CAP training? Inadequate. Why don't we start training medical providers if it's that easy.
It sounds like we need more LPCC's, LCSW's, psychiatrists, and psychologists if we have a need for secular counseling and grief counseling in disaster scenarios.
So, we recruit chaplains with religious ordination in at least one faith in which proselytizing is a tenet. Then, we don't let them proselytize and then give them roles that anybody could perform or roles that they are professionally unqualified for.
So, in the case of a mass-casualty event, a Christian chaplain should announce, "Hey everybody, I'm not a counseling professional but if you are a follower of the faith represented on my collar I might be able to use the doctrine of your faith to provide comfort. It rarely works for emergeant situations but that's all I got. You might want to talk to a CISM officer. They haven't been to NESA but they are professionals. We probably should have recruited more professionals for that role but somebody thought we would be perfect for mass-casualty events when we are really better prepared to give prayers at change of commands".
Eventually, we are going to have a cadet kill themself when we recommend they speak to a chaplain and instead of telling the chaplain they are homesick they reveal they are gay, transgendered, pregnant, or depressed and aren't refered to a professional or parent. It could happen and we are creating the conditions for it to happen. Our chaplains are describing themselves as counselors and seeking the confidence of those in their counsel by promising priest-penitent privilege. What would the parents of cadets think of that?
If we believe what chaplains are telling us, they really should be a CISM asset.
The context I suggested was a mass-casualty event. My question is, what's their role in a mass-casualty event? They don't have training or licensing in clinical counseling. So, what's left? Pastoral counseling? Very few chaplains are licensed pastoral counselors and pastoral counselors invoke doctrine. So, what's left? Pastoral skills? You can't pastor without reference to religious doctrine. I can't imagine a pastor not invoking their faith to comfort others if that's the only tool on their belt, or collar. So, what's left? Skills learned through CAP training? Inadequate. Why don't we start training medical providers if it's that easy.
It sounds like we need more LPCC's, LCSW's, psychiatrists, and psychologists if we have a need for secular counseling and grief counseling in disaster scenarios.
The role of a chaplain at a Mass Casualty event is the same as other care givers....to assess the immediate needs of the victims. It is not a time for "long term" counseling. CAP training or training recognized by CAP? Two separate issues. CAP does not provide training for Mass Casualty responses...however, CAP does recognize (like other organizations) FEMA courses (Mass Casualty is one of them). CAP and its Chaplain Corps uses Psychological First-Aid and Resiliency tools (as does the military). Having directed CCRSCs in the past, we offered training in these areas from
*gasp* secular organizations that provided certification.
So, we recruit chaplains with religious ordination in at least one faith in which proselytizing is a tenet. Then, we don't let them proselytize and then give them roles that anybody could perform or roles that they are professionally unqualified for.
That is news to me that
"we recruit chaplains with religious ordination in at least one faith in which proselytizing is a tenet". We look for Chaplains who have an understanding of what it means to serve in a pluralistic/secular environment. During my tenure as a Wing/Region Chaplain that there have been those occasions where I have had to tell a member of the Chaplain Corps that their service would be better fitted somewhere else, that CAP was not the right place for them. It was also my responsibility to help provide training/resources for effective service.
So, in the case of a mass-casualty event, a Christian chaplain should announce, "Hey everybody, I'm not a counseling professional but if you are a follower of the faith represented on my collar I might be able to use the doctrine of your faith to provide comfort. It rarely works for emergeant situations but that's all I got. You might want to talk to a CISM officer. They haven't been to NESA but they are professionals. We probably should have recruited more professionals for that role but somebody thought we would be perfect for mass-casualty events when we are really better prepared to give prayers at change of commands".Having worked more Mass Casualty events than I would care to share during my years as a Law Enforcement/Public Safety Chaplain, I find that described scenario as preposterous. As shared in my opening remark, as "first responders" we are seeking to meet the immediate need: it may be moving them out of the immediate area, providing water or something to eat, a shoulder to cry or beat on, providing guidance for handling the aftermath of the event, and the list can go on. Like other ES ratings in CAP, the Chaplain Corps uses FEMA courses as part of the training -- the same courses that are also used by other professional groups like LE, EMS, Fire, Mental Health, etc As for Mass Casualty events, these are few and far between in our CAP world, but in the outside world where CAP services may be called upon, it is something that our Chaplain Corps personnel should be trained for.
Eventually, we are going to have a cadet kill themself when we recommend they speak to a chaplain and instead of telling the chaplain they are homesick they reveal they are gay, transgendered, pregnant, or depressed and aren't referred to a professional or parent. It could happen and we are creating the conditions for it to happen. Our chaplains are describing themselves as counselors and seeking the confidence of those in their counsel by promising priest-penitent privilege. What would the parents of cadets think of that? Pastors and Chaplains, while maintaining the priest-penitent privilege and the confidentiality statues of the state they reside in, do refer when specialized or long-term counseling is warranted. Kinda like the medical field: Being a doctor at a Family practice and referring to a Cardiologist. One should know their limitations and skills. Believe it or not, some states have laws that prohibit the counselor from sharing information with the parent. As Spam pointed out, Encampment is not a venue for "long-term", "therapeutic" counseling to take place.
If we believe what chaplains are telling us, they really should be a CISM asset. CISM is a multi-disciplinary function. A CISM team is composed of individuals from the following fields: mental health, medical, clergy, and peer representative.
Having served as a Chaplain in CAP for 20+ years and 25+ years of LE/PS Chaplaincy and 30+ years of pastoral ministry (all three overlapping...so don't think for a moment that I offered the prayer at Kitty Hawk when the Wright Brothers took their first flight :) ), I can attest that a person of the cloth is a welcomed sight in many situations...where someone from the mental health field wasn't. The observation shared with others was that "the Chaplain treated me like a person to be assisted and not a patient to be analyzed."
Quote from: Spam on December 11, 2016, 04:40:07 AM
At any rate, Damron, I think this level of counseling/therapy for cadets is NOT something CAP should be dealing with. with cadets and especially in encampment settings. I think you and I might agree on that? Then, perhaps we might agree that chaplains (and HSOs, and all officers) should know their limitations?
Yes, my fear is CAP doesn't appreciate these limitations as they scramble to find roles for Chaplains in a changing environment.
Despite my harsh words, I do see a place for chaplains in CAP. Actually, I see several places. CAP has really done a disservice to its chaplains, forcing them to accept a secular role they are unprepared for and manage secular programs like CDI that they may have no interest in.
CISM:
Chaplains should complement the CISM mission. There are those that find comfort in their faith and it makes sense to let chaplains be chaplains when it is appropriate.
Character Development:
CD is a secular program and chaplains should be able participate in the program. It shouldn't be run by the chaplaincy. They should be subordinate to wing or group CD officers that aren't necessarily chaplains.
Observance:
At multi-day events, let chaplains perform a service. Don't pressure members to participate.
Volunteer Service:
Chaplaincy should be secondary. We need more drivers, not chaplains. We need more encampment and NCSA staff, not chaplains. Every unit has available duty assignments that can be filled by chaplains.
Chaplains should be called to serve, not necessarily or exclusively as chaplains.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 06:46:50 AM
Quote from: Spam on December 11, 2016, 04:40:07 AM
At any rate, Damron, I think this level of counseling/therapy for cadets is NOT something CAP should be dealing with. with cadets and especially in encampment settings. I think you and I might agree on that? Then, perhaps we might agree that chaplains (and HSOs, and all officers) should know their limitations?
<snip>
Yes, my fear is CAP doesn't appreciate these limitations as they scramble to find roles for Chaplains in a changing environment.
Despite my harsh words, I do see a place for chaplains in CAP. Actually, I see several places. CAP has really done a disservice to its chaplains, forcing them to accept a secular role they are unprepared for and manage secular programs like CDI that they may have no interest in.
<snip>
Character Development:
CD is a secular program and chaplains should be able participate in the program. It shouldn't be run by the chaplaincy. They should be subordinate to wing or group CD officers that aren't necessarily chaplains.
<snip>
Observance:
At multi-day events, let chaplains perform a service. Don't pressure members to participate.
Volunteer Service:
Chaplaincy should be secondary. We need more drivers, not chaplains. We need more encampment and NCSA staff, not chaplains. Every unit has available duty assignments that can be filled by chaplains.
Chaplains should be called to serve, not necessarily or exclusively as chaplains.
Regarding Character Development....
Just a historical note regarding the CAP Chaplain Corps...the Moral Leadership/Character Development program was established by the Chaplain Corps: In 1972 "Values for Living," Part 1, was first published. In 1974, Air Reserve Personnel Center assigned five reserve chaplains to the National Chaplain's office to write the "Values for Living" curriculum. The Freedom Foundation, Valley Forge, PA, awarded their 1974 Honor Award to CAP for its "Values for Living" moral leadership curriculum and its ministry to youth. In these early years, the push was on to relate to youth on a new and expanded level. The support for Christian Encounter Conferences was dwindling and only two were being held. It was now suggested that Regional Chaplain Conferences take place where there would be Ministry to Youth Labs held. You have to wonder what they were all trying as they were sweeping aside the practices of yesterday and reaching out to the "Now World" with "Now Chaplains". By the end of the decade; "Values for Living" was in its 8th edition of publication."
Source: http://capchaplain.com/history-cap-chaplain-corps/
Observance....In my years of CAP experience....services are made available, they are optional. I have never seen or heard of any of the chaplains in the wing/region where I serve pressure attendance.
Volunteer service...again from my experiences (and the Form 34s/'After-action Reports" that are submitted), CAP Chaplains have driven vans for Encampments and other cadet activities, they do the food runs for meals at a SARX, they present classes at various training or activities for cadets and seniors (Cadet Program Conferences, SLS, CLC,RSC, UCC, the list can go on(), several of our chaplains are pilots and provide O-rides, Chaplains have served at NSC as staff members in roles as Deputy Director, Seminar advisors, Protocol Officers, Public Affairs, and of course - Chaplain, Chaplains have designed web-sites for local squadrons and wings, they have served as safety officers...taught AE and Leadership lessons, participate at airshows -- basically, you can find Chaplains in all sorts of service roles that goes beyond just wearing a cross, a set of tablets, a prayer wheel, etc.
So, you don't think "Values for Living" represents a shift to a secular approach? The fact that it was designed by chaplains doesn't negate that.
Of course, most chaplains perform multiple functions. For that I am thankful.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 07:31:38 AM
So, you don't think "Values for Living" represents a shift to a secular approach? The fact that it was designed by chaplains doesn't negate that.
Of course, most chaplains perform multiple functions. For that I am thankful.
From the very beginning of the program, you will find the instruction that ML/CD was not a religious class....that it was to be a cadet-driven program with lessons facilitated by the Chaplain, then later the MLO/CDI. Read the publications dating back to the '70s. It has always had the secular and not a religious bent. I just found the comment that "the chaplain should be able to participate in the program" somewhat amusing since it was the Chaplain Corps that established it in the first place ;)
My listing of items that chaplains perform on a regular basis was to the assertion that "we need more <fill in the blank>, not chaplains" and that "Chaplains should be called to serve, not necessarily or exclusively as chaplains".
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 07:31:38 AM
So, you don't think "Values for Living" represents a shift to a secular approach? The fact that it was designed by chaplains doesn't negate that.
Of course, most chaplains perform multiple functions. For that I am thankful.
From the very beginning of the program, you will find the instruction that ML/CD was not a religious class....that it was to be a cadet-driven program with lessons facilitated by the Chaplain, then later the MLO/CDI. It has always had the secular and not a religious bent. I just found the comment that "the chaplain should be able to participate in the program" somewhat amusing since it was the Chaplain Corps that established it in the first place ;)
My listing of items that chaplains perform on a regular basis was to the assertion that "we need more <fill in the blank>, not chaplains" and that "Chaplains should be called to serve, not necessarily or exclusively as chaplains".
I understand the history, but why should the CD/CDI program be administered by chaplains?
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 07:50:35 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 07:31:38 AM
So, you don't think "Values for Living" represents a shift to a secular approach? The fact that it was designed by chaplains doesn't negate that.
Of course, most chaplains perform multiple functions. For that I am thankful.
From the very beginning of the program, you will find the instruction that ML/CD was not a religious class....that it was to be a cadet-driven program with lessons facilitated by the Chaplain, then later the MLO/CDI. It has always had the secular and not a religious bent. I just found the comment that "the chaplain should be able to participate in the program" somewhat amusing since it was the Chaplain Corps that established it in the first place ;)
My listing of items that chaplains perform on a regular basis was to the assertion that "we need more <fill in the blank>, not chaplains" and that "Chaplains should be called to serve, not necessarily or exclusively as chaplains".
I understand the history, but why should the CD/CDI program be administered by chaplains?
Cadet Programs has a AE component --- who is the OPR for AE???
I'm running out of steam. I think that chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies. Beyond that, I'm not saying that chaplains are unqualified to manage the CD/CDI program, I'm asking why they are uniquely and exclusively qualified.
Why should an expert on Bible trivia be exclusively qualified to run the CD/CDI program?
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
I'm running out of steam. I think that chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies. Beyond that, I'm not saying that chaplains are unqualified to manage the CD/CDI program, I'm asking why they are uniquely and exclusively qualified.
Why should an expert on Bible trivia be exclusively qualified to run the CD/CDI program?
Wow "an expert on Bible trivia" kind of condescending of a Chaplain's education and training
I have no issues with the Chaplain Corps or their program. I've been fortunate enough to have met and worked with some fantastic chaplains over the years.
I do have issues with the CDI appointment process and even question the need for a special appointment at all. The requirements for CDI appointment are so low right now that almost anyone could be appointed one. Yet, once appointed they're set apart from the rest of the membership. Whether they continue to function as a CDI in a squadron or not (a duty assignment designated by the commander, not the chaplain), they keep the "credentials" of CDI. Why? It's not like they underwent special training for that status. And if a unit has more qualified and suitable members to lead Character Development discussions, they can't unless they undergo the appointment process. If they do't wish to undergo the process or be part of the Chaplain Corps, then a valuable Character Development resource is lost. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
CORRECTION: The CDI duty assignment cannot be made or remove by a commander. If the member is no longer active or suitable, the commander must go through the chain to get that assignment removed.
Quote from: Chappie on December 08, 2016, 09:12:11 PM
And on that note, we differ. CAP Chaplains have a place and a role in this organization.
Even as an atheist who has disagreed with Chappie on a couple of things in the past, I agree completely with this statement. In fact, the disaster support organization that constitutes my day job is developing a volunteer chaplain corps because I told the board of directors that it needs to be a thing. Even though the job- minus the interactions with religious folks- in many ways actually is closer to what most would imagine a social worker doing, I would much rather use clergy because most social workers are much harder to work with. Plus, just because I don't have faith myself does not mean that the people I am accountable to (the folks who work for me) and the people we serve also lack faith. My job is to provide means to take care of them so they can do their jobs. This is one aspect of that I believe in wholeheartedly.
If a chaplaincy is set up and managed right, the fact that chaplains (generally) have theistic beliefs is pretty superfluous. They are technically supposed to be a moral support and general resource for folks of all beliefs. As an example, one of the people I go to after bad calls is an Episcopal priest because I respect his opinion and know his heart is in the right place. Oddly enough, he's actually the guy who officiated my marriage to my first wife. LOL To this day if he called saying he needed a kidney, I would cut it out of my own back for him. Then again, I feel the same way about my ex-wife as well....
Now during my time in emergency services (not as in CAP ES) and the military did I run into heavy handed chaplains who abused their position to proselytize? You bet because there are jerks in any population of sufficient size. But a few bad apples don't spoil the barrel. There are far more that I met who I think made me a better person even if I find it rather quaint that an otherwise intelligent person believes in an invisible dude in the sky. Of course, my attitude is also that I don't care what someone believes so long as it drives them to do good things.
Quote from: DamronI'm running out of steam. I think that chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies.
My one minor gripe with the CAP chaplaincy is the resistance to switching to a more scientifically grounded approach to stress related disorder prevention and in that one narrow aspect of the field, I agree with you. However, it's a very low frequency matter that really doesn't matter much so it's not worth the squabbling in a setting that can do nothing to improve the situation..
However, I take some degree of affront at your characterization of chaplains as "bible trivia experts". Congratulations on taking someone who probably has a substantial amount of intellectual prowess in a much broader sense than your average person and treating them like some form of mental midget. I would say at very least, that as a professional and a colleague you owe Chappie and his colleagues a sincere apology for that statement.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
I'm running out of steam. I think that chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies. Beyond that, I'm not saying that chaplains are unqualified to manage the CD/CDI program, I'm asking why they are uniquely and exclusively qualified.
Why should an expert on Bible trivia be exclusively qualified to run the CD/CDI program?
Regarding your assertion that "chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies", I would encourage you to read Chapters 2 and 3 of the 221A -- Chapter 3, lists the Five Core Processes of the CAP Chaplain Corps which form the basic competencies (lest the 9 plagues of Biblical proportion from Exodus are unleashed - a bit of Biblical trivia reference...LOL). I would submit that chaplains are qualified to and actually perform those Core Processes.
Also keep in mind, the great amount of time and energy of a pastor/chaplain is not spent in an ivory tower contemplating or studying....rather it is interacting with people of all ages confronting issues of "real life" -- this week alone I have dealt with (not CAP related) a grieving family who lost a loved one, a family with a the husband/father who went through cancer surgery, problem solving/personnel issues (both at work and CAP -- administrative work), communication (writing publications, emails, and of course - participating in this thread), no counseling this week -- however there were a couple of sessions, last week.
As for the question of running the CD/CDI program....it's the OPR. This has been a topic of discussion for as long as I can remember. Many minds and voices have spent time considering this over the past 20 years....changes (some significant) have been made within the program...but not the OPR. The program involves administration, personnel, curriculum, etc. which Chaplains are familiar with as well. The local pastor is largely a CEO/COO of a business...and needs to have a certain degree of experience in those areas (as well as budget)....they oversee various programs and staff. Like other members of CAP, they bring to the table various talents, skill sets, and life experiences which qualify them to oversee various operations.
Two major fallacies above, the former of which you keep referencing.
Not all CAP Chaplains pursue the specialty track, I would hazard many have never even opened it, and the appointment is
based wholly on external education and ecclesiastical endorsement. Assuming they have, the 5 Core processes are not unique to a
Chaplain, (other then the religious aspect)nor do I see how a member of clergy, per se, has any special force powers in those regards.
That's a core part of the problem with the assumption of clergy as "special" - if you recognize a higher power, or the higher power they do,
then the logic is better.
If you don't recognize a higher, or the higher, then they are no more or less qualified, per se, then anyone else with a similar
level of education and general life or business experience.
As to the latter, while many CAP Chaplains are pastors, certainly there are plenty to who are not, so unless the vetting includes some
leadership time within the respective faith, that assumption should not be made.
And the point made earlier about the "secondary chain of command" is correct - a unit CC cannot appoint or remove a Chaplain
without approval of higher HQ, unlike any other staff position - that's clearly a secondary chain, and one which wields it's power
on a regular basis.
BITD I had a Chaplain on my roster who had not attended a meeting in several years, but because he, or someone (as it turns out
it was likely "someone") was submitting empty Form 34's I could not remove this person as my unit's Chaplain of record.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 11, 2016, 02:28:08 PM
I have no issues with the Chaplain Corps or their program. I've been fortunate enough to have met and worked with some fantastic chaplains over the years.
I do have issues with the CDI appointment process and even question the need for a special appointment at all. The requirements for CDI appointment are so low right now that almost anyone could be appointed one. Yet, once appointed they're set apart from the rest of the membership. Whether they continue to function as a CDI in a squadron or not (a duty assignment designated by the commander, not the chaplain), they keep the "credentials" of CDI. Why? It's not like they underwent special training for that status. And if a unit has more qualified and suitable members to lead Character Development discussions, they can't unless they undergo the appointment process. If they do't wish to undergo the process or be part of the Chaplain Corps, then a valuable Character Development resource is lost. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
CORRECTION: The CDI duty assignment cannot be made or remove by a commander. If the member is no longer active or suitable, the commander must go through the chain to get that assignment removed.
Stormchaser -- thanks for the words of affirmation and encouragement. It is one of my greatest joys and privileges to serve the members of CAP and serve with dedicated/committed fellow volunteer professionals, like yourself (and others that I have met through this forum).
My response is framed from the perspective who has been in Senior Leadership of the Chaplain Corps since 2001 -- and has been part of discussions and decisions within the Chaplain Corps -- and have the scars to smiles to show for it.
Regarding the CDI appointment requirements....for years, the question/concern raised by members of CAP (as well as many of us in Senior Leadership of the Chaplain Corps) was basically that Character Development is a required component of cadet training. Chaplains and MLOs/CDIs are required to facilitate these sessions. We have squadrons that have neither a chaplain or CDI to meet this requirement. Recruiting Chaplains is difficult. And the requirements for a MLO/CDI appointment....if CD isn't a religious activity, why is a letter of recommendation necessary from a pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi/iman???? -- and 60 hours of education from an accredited school (no standard of academic discipline required that had anything to do with the responsibilities of facilitating CD).
So at the urging of many "nice old guys" (LOL) --and under the outstanding leadership of the current Chief, it was discussed and decided that instead of having requirements that were restrictive (based again on the concerns/questions from commanders/members/yes, even chaplains), it was felt that the Chaplain Corps leadership step up to the plate and do something bold that would meet the need. So it started with the letter of recommendation...no longer a letter of religious endorsement. Then seeing that Cadet Programs were requiring two graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron...we determined that the "artificial" academic requirement be replaced with a standardized requirement: completion of TLC (Basic) and Basic Instructor Course (CAP). The thinking...if a squadron commander approves/presents a qualified person, we will get them appointed. (And as mentioned in a previous post, since 2015 there has been a dramatic increase in CDI appointments). A substantial specialty training guide has been developed for CDIs -- by CDIs released in the past year (the prior guide was published 4 years after the MLO/CDI position was established in 1995).
As for the
appointment/assignment...like other specialty tracks, I have not heard of someone's rating in AE, History, Professional Development, et al being revoked. You are "spot on" about the
appointment of a CDI/Chaplain...it is difficult to remove. A member of the Chaplain Corps can resign their
appointment...seen that occur. A member of the Chaplain Corps can be 2B'd....seen that occur. An application to the Chaplain Corps as a Chaplain or CDI has been denied by a squadron commander, wing chaplain, or wing commander has occurred. The duty
assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
On a side note: the appointment of CDI/Chaplain play an important role in the online module of reporting the CD session.
In my dealings as a Wing/Region Chaplain I have worked with Squadron and Wing leadership to resolve these kind of issues. A Squadron Commander controls the Personnel Authorization for their respective units. If a CDI or Chaplain isn't performing their responsibilities or being a "pain in the keaster", the Commander does not need to keep them on the PA.
Bottom line: Chaplains (and CDIs) serve the commander at every level. I have worked with command staff in the past and present to resolve the issues regarding the
"assignment". The process of the Form 2A is the same for a CDI/Chaplain as it is for any another duty assignment.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PMThe duty assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
This is incorrect - a Unit Chaplain cannot be removed by anyone lower then the Wing Chaplain.
Edit: Hmm, I just checked the duty Assignment module and there is a "delete" button there. I'm not
about to test the theory by de-assigning my Chaplin, I have enough problems, but I still
believe this to be the case. It certainly was the last time I had the issue, which admittedly was a number
of years ago.
There is still the red "Chaplain" in the personnel area, which obviously denotes special status.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
Regarding the CDI appointment requirements....for years, the question/concern raised by members of CAP (as well as many of us in Senior Leadership of the Chaplain Corps) was basically that Character Development is a required component of cadet training. Chaplains and MLOs/CDIs are required to facilitate these sessions. We have squadrons that have neither a chaplain or CDI to meet this requirement. Recruiting Chaplains is difficult. And the requirements for a MLO/CDI appointment....if CD isn't a religious activity, why is a letter of recommendation necessary from a pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi/iman???? -- and 60 hours of education from an accredited school (no standard of academic discipline required that had anything to do with the responsibilities of facilitating CD).
Years? Prior to the current state, there was no mandate of an MLO / CDI facilitating the discussion, in fact, 52-16 specifically indicated that
a commander may appoint anyone to facilitate the discussion. Thus, there was no "discussion" on this below perhaps wing.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9188.msg165424#msg165424
In fact, I would say during that period, the OPR was clearly CP, not the Chaplaincy. That was also during a time the MLO still had to be a member
of a church.
I don't have the time to find the exact dates, but it appears to be since only about 2010 or so, which is technically years,
but not in the way insinuated.
The issue with manpower constraints regarding CD sessions is a pretty recent phenomena, and isn't even universally recognized.
For the typical reasons CAP has issues, I can assure you there are plenty of units unaware of the issue.
Side note: Gotta love the national website - still has versions of documents that refer to MLO, including a page on how to become one.http://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/how_to_join/clergy_faq/?&show=faq&faqID=148
Quote from: KASSRCrashResearch on December 11, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
However, I take some degree of affront at your characterization of chaplains as "bible trivia experts". Congratulations on taking someone who probably has a substantial amount of intellectual prowess in a much broader sense than your average person and treating them like some form of mental midget. I would say at very least, that as a professional and a colleague you owe Chappie and his colleagues a sincere apology for that statement.
I said nothing about anyone's intellect.
As far as education goes, many Christian colleges and schools of divinity have put together a pretty solid liberal arts education, that's a somewhat recent phenomenon. Yet, many religious colleges have no secular accreditation and some are parodies of higher education. So, my quip about (Christian) chaplains being experts at Bible trivia was a bit flippant. Some are certainly well educated by anyone's measure.
Lets not be afraid to question anything in CAP that doesn't make sense. Don't be afraid to question the future role of the Chaplaincy in CAP.
KASSRCrashResearch...thank you for the kind words and thoughtful post.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2016, 06:12:53 PM
Two major fallacies above, the former of which you keep referencing.
Not all CAP Chaplains pursue the specialty track, I would hazard many have never even opened it, and the appointment is
based wholly on external education and ecclesiastical endorsement. Assuming they have, the 5 Core processes are not unique to a
Chaplain, (other then the religious aspect)nor do I see how a member of clergy, per se, has any special force powers in those regards.
That's a core part of the problem with the assumption of clergy as "special" - if you recognize a higher power, or the higher power they do,
then the logic is better.
If you don't recognize a higher, or the higher, then they are no more or less qualified, per se, then anyone else with a similar
level of education and general life or business experience.
As to the latter, while many CAP Chaplains are pastors, certainly there are plenty to who are not, so unless the vetting includes some
leadership time within the respective faith, that assumption should not be made.
And the point made earlier about the "secondary chain of command" is correct - a unit CC cannot appoint or remove a Chaplain
without approval of higher HQ, unlike any other staff position - that's clearly a secondary chain, and one which wields it's power
on a regular basis.
BITD I had a Chaplain on my roster who had not attended a meeting in several years, but because he, or someone (as it turns out
it was likely "someone") was submitting empty Form 34's I could not remove this person as my unit's Chaplain of record.
Eclipse...regarding the assertion that Chaplains do not follow the specialty track or have ever opened the 221A, do you have access to the STR of the Chaplain Corps personnel? Wing and Region Chaplains receive one quarterly -- and part of their responsibilities are too encourage the Chaplain Corps personnel to pursue their PD training. Since 2007, Chaplains no longer use the Special Recognition Program, and follow the same PD requirements as the other senior members --- so your remark caused me to wonder about the validity of your statement. Currently there are 446 appointed Chaplains. Out of this number, those who were appointed prior to 2007 have received either their Senior or Master rating (BTW when the updated 221 was released recently this year...all chaplains were requested to retake the tests)...which means they have opened the 221 series, being that the tests are o-line. Out of the 446 appointed chaplains, there are currently 55 chaplains who do not have the Technician rating...48 of which have been appointed within the last 18 months.
My comments regarding the 5 Core Processes were in reference to Damron's posting regarding competencies. Not going to debate the uniqueness or universality of them....was simply responding to "chaplains are unqualified for many of the tasks in which they claim competencies." The 5 Core Processes form our competencies.
While many of our chaplains may not be "pastors", they have served in staff/ministry positions that certainly have equipped them for the tasks we perform. There are many retired military chaplains -- as well as several active duty chaplains (and a couple of active duty CDIs).
You are correct..."appointments" to the Chaplain Corps take place at the National level. In fact, only the Chief of the Chaplain Corps can work with the NHQ and the endorsing body to remove a Chaplain's appointment. A CDI's "appointment" can be removed with the approval of the Wing Commander and the Chief of the Chaplain Corps. However, the "assignment" is an easier process than BITD.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2016, 06:20:02 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PMThe duty assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
This is incorrect - a Unit Chaplain cannot be removed by anyone lower then the Wing Chaplain.
Edit: Hmm, I just checked the duty Assignment module and there is a "delete" button there. I'm not
about to test the theory by de-assigning my Chaplin, I have enough problems, but I still
believe this to be the case. It certainly was the last time I had the issue, which admittedly was a number
of years ago.
There is still the red "Chaplain" in the personnel area, which obviously denotes special status.
The red "Chaplain" or "CDI" denotes the appointment.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
Regarding the CDI appointment requirements....for years, the question/concern raised by members of CAP (as well as many of us in Senior Leadership of the Chaplain Corps) was basically that Character Development is a required component of cadet training. Chaplains and MLOs/CDIs are required to facilitate these sessions. We have squadrons that have neither a chaplain or CDI to meet this requirement. Recruiting Chaplains is difficult. And the requirements for a MLO/CDI appointment....if CD isn't a religious activity, why is a letter of recommendation necessary from a pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi/iman???? -- and 60 hours of education from an accredited school (no standard of academic discipline required that had anything to do with the responsibilities of facilitating CD).
So at the urging of many "nice old guys" (LOL) --and under the outstanding leadership of the current Chief, it was discussed and decided that instead of having requirements that were restrictive (based again on the concerns/questions from commanders/members/yes, even chaplains), it was felt that the Chaplain Corps leadership step up to the plate and do something bold that would meet the need. So it started with the letter of recommendation...no longer a letter of religious endorsement. Then seeing that Cadet Programs were requiring two graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron...we determined that the "artificial" academic requirement be replaced with a standardized requirement: completion of TLC (Basic) and Basic Instructor Course (CAP). The thinking...if a squadron commander approves/presents a qualified person, we will get them appointed. (And as mentioned in a previous post, since 2015 there has been a dramatic increase in CDI appointments). A substantial specialty training guide has been developed for CDIs -- by CDIs released in the past year (the prior guide was published 4 years after the MLO/CDI position was established in 1995).
We have no arguments here. I believe the number of appointed CDIs has increased over the past couple of years because of these requirement changes, coupled with the fact that there are not enough active chaplains to address the needs of every cadet and composite squadron in CAP and unit commanders can only lead character development sessions in a temporary basis in accordance with the regulation.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
As for the appointment/assignment...like other specialty tracks, I have not heard of someone's rating in AE, History, Professional Development, et al being revoked.
I don't think we should mix in this discussion Specialty Track ratings, which are earned and don't expire, with an appointment that is not earned and never expires and a duty assignment that can't be easily removed by the unit commander.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
You are "spot on" about the appointment of a CDI/Chaplain...it is difficult to remove. A member of the Chaplain Corps can resign their appointment...seen that occur. A member of the Chaplain Corps can be 2B'd....seen that occur. An application to the Chaplain Corps as a Chaplain or CDI has been denied by a squadron commander, wing chaplain, or wing commander has occurred. The duty assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
I concur with all of that. My issue is not with the chaplain appointment. Chaplains have a special status and I'm fine with that. My issue is with granting CDIs a special status or appointment. I don't believe that's needed to meet our Character Development program.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
In my dealings as a Wing/Region Chaplain I have worked with Squadron and Wing leadership to resolve these kind of issues. A Squadron Commander controls the Personnel Authorization for their respective units. If a CDI or Chaplain isn't performing their responsibilities or being a "pain in the keaster", the Commander does not need to keep them on the PA.
The issue is that PAs, while still used by many units, are not really required as duty assignments are done using the Duty Assignment module in eServices. The CDI duty assignment (not appointment; they're actually different) can't be made or removed by the commander.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2016, 06:20:02 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PMThe duty assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
This is incorrect - a Unit Chaplain cannot be removed by anyone lower then the Wing Chaplain.
Edit: Hmm, I just checked the duty Assignment module and there is a "delete" button there. I'm not
about to test the theory by de-assigning my Chaplin, I have enough problems, but I still
believe this to be the case. It certainly was the last time I had the issue, which admittedly was a number
of years ago.
There is still the red "Chaplain" in the personnel area, which obviously denotes special status.
I just double checked the CDI duty assignment and I can neither make one nor remove one. Which means I can't assign an already appointed CDI to another unit as ADY without going up the chain.
I also checked for Chaplain duty assignment. In fact, when I assigned a chaplain ADY to my group staff I had to submit a CAPF 2A up the chain.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2016, 06:41:11 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
Regarding the CDI appointment requirements....for years, the question/concern raised by members of CAP (as well as many of us in Senior Leadership of the Chaplain Corps) was basically that Character Development is a required component of cadet training. Chaplains and MLOs/CDIs are required to facilitate these sessions. We have squadrons that have neither a chaplain or CDI to meet this requirement. Recruiting Chaplains is difficult. And the requirements for a MLO/CDI appointment....if CD isn't a religious activity, why is a letter of recommendation necessary from a pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi/iman???? -- and 60 hours of education from an accredited school (no standard of academic discipline required that had anything to do with the responsibilities of facilitating CD).
Years? Prior to the current state, there was no mandate of an MLO / CDI facilitating the discussion, in fact, 52-16 specifically indicated that
a commander may appoint anyone to facilitate the discussion. Thus, there was no "discussion" on this below perhaps wing.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9188.msg165424#msg165424
In fact, I would say during that period, the OPR was clearly CP, not the Chaplaincy. That was also during a time the MLO still had to be a member
of a church.
I don't have the time to find the exact dates, but it appears to be since only about 2010 or so, which is technically years,
but not in the way insinuated.
The issue with manpower constraints regarding CD sessions is a pretty recent phenomena, and isn't even universally recognized.
For the typical reasons CAP has issues, I can assure you there are plenty of units unaware of the issue.
Side note: Gotta love the national website - still has versions of documents that refer to MLO, including a page on how to become one.
http://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/how_to_join/clergy_faq/?&show=faq&faqID=148
Years??? I was working from my personal experience/perspective as a Senior Leader in the Chaplain Corps. When I became a Wing Chaplain in 2001 there were these discussions....and then as a Region Chaplain in 2008...there were discussions. These discussions were ongoing until 2014 when the current Chief was appointed. He had sat at the table and heard the discussions when he was a wing chaplain, region chaplain, and a member of the CCEC -- and determined the time of discussing the CD/CDI program was over. And things have changed dramatically (refer to previous postings) in regards to the program.
Thanks for the link but as in CAP, things do change. Whether or not there was a mandate of the Chaplain or MLO/CDI facilitating the session, it definitely was inferred, hence the Squadron Commander "temporarily" leading the session or designating someone to lead it. As noted in the thread, the squadron commander could
"temporarily lead the session" and
"should strive to recruit a chaplain or character development instructor as soon as possible" (obsolete CAPR 265-1) or
"appoint a senior member to conduct the moral leadership program if a chaplain or MLO is not available" (obsolete CAPR 52-16).
Here is the current wording in the CAPR 52-16:
b) Character Forums. Unit commanders will provide a character development program for cadets, using the resources found at capmembers.com/character. A CAP chaplain or character development instructor (CDI) will coordinate the program. In units without a chaplain or CDI, the commander may temporarily lead character forums, but must endeavor to recruit a chaplain or CDI as soon as possible. During character forums, cadets examine moral and ethical issues, but the forums are not religious meetings. The current reg no longer provides a designation for someone else other than a chaplain or character development instructor to lead the session. The requirements for a CDI appointment makes it easier for a squadron to recruit and obtain a CDI appointment than it was years ago.
Character Development has been part of the Chaplain Corps OPR since its inception.
The manpower constraints are not a pretty recent phenomena....it was a part of the discussions of Wing and Region Chaplains dating back to my appointment as a Wing Chaplain in '01...who knows if they were occurring prior - but I would assume they had since I got a seat at the table with 5 other Wing Chaplains who were appointed before me. It was a major concern for my wing chaplains when I was a Region Chaplain. The reports (F34) gathered each month demonstrated that we did not have adequate squadron coverage to facilitate a CD session for our cadets. We had chaplains and character development instructors traveling to another squadron and as many as 5 others to lead a session.
Per the side note: Unfortunately, the Chaplain Corps does not have control over the its content on the NHQ website. We stood up our own website in September - www.capchaplain.com - and NHQ IT was supposed to make sure all the links got redirected. Evidently they haven't :(.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 11, 2016, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2016, 06:20:02 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 06:14:05 PMThe duty assignment for a member of the Chaplain Corps is the same process as any other duty position...use the Form 2A.
This is incorrect - a Unit Chaplain cannot be removed by anyone lower then the Wing Chaplain.
Edit: Hmm, I just checked the duty Assignment module and there is a "delete" button there. I'm not
about to test the theory by de-assigning my Chaplin, I have enough problems, but I still
believe this to be the case. It certainly was the last time I had the issue, which admittedly was a number
of years ago.
There is still the red "Chaplain" in the personnel area, which obviously denotes special status.
I just double checked the CDI duty assignment and I can neither make one nor remove one. Which means I can't assign an already appointed CDI to another unit as ADY without going up the chain.
I also checked for Chaplain duty assignment. In fact, when I assigned a chaplain ADY to my group staff I had to submit a CAPF 2A up the chain.
It is my understanding that the duty assignment is for the primary unit -- and not for additional units. You may want to check that out with NHQ personnel. I sure do miss Frances....she answered all my questions and helped me immensely. I forgot to add....she is the one who gave me the insight on the use of the Form 2A -- and unfortunately there is no way around that.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: KASSRCrashResearch on December 11, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
However, I take some degree of affront at your characterization of chaplains as "bible trivia experts". Congratulations on taking someone who probably has a substantial amount of intellectual prowess in a much broader sense than your average person and treating them like some form of mental midget. I would say at very least, that as a professional and a colleague you owe Chappie and his colleagues a sincere apology for that statement.
<Snip>
As far as education goes, many Christian colleges and schools of divinity have put together a pretty solid liberal arts education, that's a somewhat recent phenomenon. Yet, many religious colleges have no secular accreditation and some are parodies of higher education. So, my quip about (Christian) chaplains being experts at Bible trivia was a bit flippant. Some are certainly well educated by anyone's measure.
<snip>
The minimum academic requirement for a CAP Chaplain is a Bachelor's degree from an accredited school (recognized by the DoD and is listed in the American Council on Education ACE directory). A "waivered" Chaplain...needs to have the Bachelor Degree and 5 years of pastoral experience...non-waivered Chaplain needs 72 hours post-baccalaureate . Over 15 years I have personally reviewed the applications of Chaplains and have denied many because they did not meet the criteria set forth in the CAPR 265-1. And the statement made was a bit flippant.
So regardless of intentions, the road to "here", or any of the religious sides of the discussion,
since implementation, the CDI program has:
1 - Reduced the number of candidates to present Character Development sessions.
2 - Reduced the number of actual instructors to present Character Development sessions.
3 - Increased the work load and hassle factor of the average Commander.
4 - Negatively impacted the perishable progression of cadets in many squadrons.
...with no demonstrable increase in quality or quantity of CDI sessions, and NHQ seems either unaware of the issue
or unwilling to concede that it didn't work as hoped and make adjustments, except to try and extend a failed program
into additional areas it was never intended for.
As a matter of fact, the religious aspects of the argument are actually a distraction from the larger issue of why
otherwise highly qualified and experienced members are unable, absent separate and distinct appointment and approval
of both Wing and Region, to present CDI while random, inexperienced, potentially unqualified commanders are not only allowed, but
required to do the facilitations.
That may be Safe, but it is neither Efficient nor Effective, so it fails the sniff test.
And verbiage and directions about commanders "actively seeking CDIs" look great on a t-shirt, but don't grow people willing to do the
job, nor impart the necessary experience unto them by writ of a Form 12 and a check that cleared. Meanwhile, the clock ticks,
cadets expire, and the status remains quo.
You are certainly entitled to your view...but again, we don't see "eye to eye"....
The implementation of the MLO/CDI position was in 1995. Since then, especially in the past 2 years, there have been dramatic and significant changes that address the concerns/observations you posted:
Reduction of candidates and actual instructors???? So an additional 74 Chaplains and 304 Character Development Instructors receiving appointments to a previously existing cadre of the Chaplain Corps since January of 2015 is considered a reduction? I realize that we discussed the figures before and your perspective on them...whether or not some or all were already conducting the CD session without an appointment and finally became "official"...the point is -- there is a CDI fulfilling the responsibilities according to the CAPR 52-16 and CAPR 265-1.
Increased work load and hassle factor of the average commander???? The Commander has always had to responsibility for the conducting of the Character Development program. The requirements for appointment of a CDI, in fact decreases the work load, current regs require 2 graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron (one of the recent changes in regs regarding appointment of a CDI - complete TLC basic). A commander can draw from a pool of those in the squadron who have TLC credit.
The mechanism, the process is in place for those you mention to become a CDI. I am a highly qualified, experienced individual....there are things that I could do in CAP if I wanted to...but it would mean taking various courses or taking off my cross to do so -- in accordance with regs -- to do so. The only thing that restricts me is my willingness to do so....CAP is not going to change the regs for my personal feelings or wants.
And I would disagree with you on "the status quo"....but then again, that is where we do not see "eye to eye".
There were/are things in the works under the direction of the current Chief that have addressed or addressing the CD program -- and it takes time and patience to develop.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
Increased work load and hassle factor of the average commander???? The Commander has always had to responsibility for the conducting of the Character Development program. The requirements for appointment of a CDI, in fact decreases the work load, current regs require 2 graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron (one of the recent changes in regs regarding appointment of a CDI - complete TLC basic). A commander can draw from a pool of those in the squadron who have TLC credit.
As a squadron commander of a small composite squadron I can tell you it is absolutely a burden on the Commander to hold Character Development. There are not enough Chaplains and the fact that I can't designate someone else (like the DCC or other Cadet Programs officer) is ridiculous
Quote from: Alaric on December 11, 2016, 11:56:43 PM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
Increased work load and hassle factor of the average commander???? The Commander has always had to responsibility for the conducting of the Character Development program. The requirements for appointment of a CDI, in fact decreases the work load, current regs require 2 graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron (one of the recent changes in regs regarding appointment of a CDI - complete TLC basic). A commander can draw from a pool of those in the squadron who have TLC credit.
As a squadron commander of a small composite squadron I can tell you it is absolutely a burden on the Commander to hold Character Development. There are not enough Chaplains and the fact that I can't designate someone else (like the DCC or other Cadet Programs officer) is ridiculous
Can you recruit one of the two senior members who have graduated from TLC (required by the CAPR 52-16) to fulfill this responsibility? Have you contacted your wing chaplain to see if there is a neighboring squadron that can assist? Just a couple of suggestions.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
You are certainly entitled to your view...but again, we don't see "eye to eye"....
The implementation of the MLO/CDI position was in 1995. Since then, especially in the past 2 years, there have been dramatic and significant changes that address the concerns/observations you posted:
Reduction of candidates and actual instructors???? So an additional 74 Chaplains and 304 Character Development Instructors receiving appointments to a previously existing cadre of the Chaplain Corps since January of 2015 is considered a reduction? I realize that we discussed the figures before and your perspective on them...whether or not some or all were already conducting the CD session without an appointment and finally became "official"...the point is -- there is a CDI fulfilling the responsibilities according to the CAPR 52-16 and CAPR 265-1.
Yes, 100% absolutely it is a
reduction. You keep reciting those numbers as if they have any meaning out of the larger context, and they don't.
Before the CDI mandate, EVERY SENIOR on the CC's whim could facilitate the sessions. Now it's only CDIs Chaplains, and the CC. There is no way, in any context,
that this will "increase" the pool of available facilitators, because "all minus some equals less".
Also, how many of those additional CDIs are also CC's? Either since command appointment or before? Those aren't +1, those are net zero.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
Increased work load and hassle factor of the average commander???? The Commander has always had to responsibility for the conducting of the Character Development program. The requirements for appointment of a CDI, in fact decreases the work load, current regs require 2 graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron (one of the recent changes in regs regarding appointment of a CDI - complete TLC basic). A commander can draw from a pool of those in the squadron who have TLC credit.
Not at will. Were this the case, you'd have less push back. As of today, in addition to the qualified / willing people, a CDI requires an outside endorsement, wing, and region approval.
This isnt' the kind of thing that happens overnight, and like all things CAP, the need for approval opens up the door to disapproval, which means it is, in fact NOT a CC's discretionary appointment,
nor can they simply "draw from the pool".
For starters, I'd be willing to bet that in many (most) units, at least one of the two mandated to have TLC is the CC, and in many case the other is "not".
The issue here is the average fly-over "Charter Minimum Composite" who just wants to get through the week as best they can and follow the rules when they know them.
Quote from: Chappie on December 12, 2016, 12:04:26 AM
Can you recruit one of the two senior members who have graduated from TLC
From where? The Civil Air Patrol Academy? University of Civil Air Patrol? Poach them from another squadron?
CAP can barely keep the doors open today - the membership trends look like a Google Maps route from Oregon to Florida and
these magic seniors will come from where? Bearing in mind also that there is ZERO national recruiting assistance (sorry NIN)
or strategic plan beyond "Have an open house!" , which in itself is part of the problem we're discussing here.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2016, 12:07:27 AM
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
You are certainly entitled to your view...but again, we don't see "eye to eye"....
The implementation of the MLO/CDI position was in 1995. Since then, especially in the past 2 years, there have been dramatic and significant changes that address the concerns/observations you posted:
Reduction of candidates and actual instructors???? So an additional 74 Chaplains and 304 Character Development Instructors receiving appointments to a previously existing cadre of the Chaplain Corps since January of 2015 is considered a reduction? I realize that we discussed the figures before and your perspective on them...whether or not some or all were already conducting the CD session without an appointment and finally became "official"...the point is -- there is a CDI fulfilling the responsibilities according to the CAPR 52-16 and CAPR 265-1.
Yes, 100% absolutely it is a reduction. You keep reciting those numbers as if they have any meaning out of the larger context, and they don't.
Before the CDI mandate, EVERY SENIOR on the CC's whim could facilitate the sessions. Now it's only CDIs Chaplains, and the CC. There is no way, in any context,
that this will "increase" the pool of available facilitators, because "all minus some equals less".
Also, how many of those additional CDIs are also CC's? Either since command appointment or before? Those aren't +1, those are net zero.
Quote from: Chappie on December 11, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
Increased work load and hassle factor of the average commander???? The Commander has always had to responsibility for the conducting of the Character Development program. The requirements for appointment of a CDI, in fact decreases the work load, current regs require 2 graduates of TLC to serve in a cadet/composite squadron (one of the recent changes in regs regarding appointment of a CDI - complete TLC basic). A commander can draw from a pool of those in the squadron who have TLC credit.
Not at will. Were this the case, you'd have less push back. As of today, in addition to the qualified / willing people, a CDI requires an outside endorsement, wing, and region approval.
This isnt' the kind of thing that happens overnight, and like all things CAP, the need for approval opens up the door to disapproval, which means it is, in fact NOT a CC's discretionary appointment,
nor can they simply "draw from the pool".
For starters, I'd be willing to bet that in many (most) units, at least one of the two mandated to have TLC is the CC, and in many case the other is "not".
The issue here is the average fly-over "Charter Minimum Composite" who just wants to get through the week as best they can and follow the rules when they know them.
Quote from: Chappie on December 12, 2016, 12:04:26 AM
Can you recruit one of the two senior members who have graduated from TLC
From where? The Civil Air Patrol Academy? University of Civil Air Patrol? Poach them from another squadron?
CAP can barely keep the doors open today - the membership trends look like a Google Maps route from Oregon to Florida and
these magic seniors will come from where? Bearing in mind also that there is ZERO national recruiting assistance (sorry NIN)
or strategic plan beyond "Have an open house!" , which in itself is part of the problem we're discussing here.
Please ask the Squadron Commanders where these 74 Chaplains and 302 Character Development Instructors were assigned whether or not their appointments had meaning.
And was EVERY SENIOR member that could be designated on a CC's whim familiar with the curriculum or the program or were theyjust putting a "check" in the box? Just handing someone a lesson and say "teach this next meeting", is that providing cadets something worthwhile? You know as well as I do, people who believe in something and is committed to it, certainly performs better than someone does something because they are either "strong-armed" into it or gets selected because they "drew the short straw". That goes to the quality of the lesson presented or program.
Again...the point I was making was that these appointments were done
in compliance to current regs. -- which I trust has great value to local squadrons.
The average appointment made by the Chief is less than a week, once it gets in his hands. The process is held up at wing or region due to an incomplete application packet. The Wing Chaplain will only disapprove an application submitted by a squadron commander if: 1) the applicant does not meet the criteria set in the CAPR 265-1, or 2) in the interview with the prospective CDI there is a sense that the person does not fully grasp of their responsibility as a CDI and willingness to work in a pluralistic environment.
If the CC has TLC, well, CD falls under their purview -- and under the current CAPR 52-16 -- certainly can apply to be a CDI ;)
And I agree about the average "fly-over Charter Minimum Composite" who wants to get through the week as best they and
follow the rules when they know them. A couple of things that come to mind....how do they learn the rules? There should be mentoring from someone who knows the organization and the way it operates (culture and rules) -- and -- I would surmise that throughout the exchanges on this thread in recent days, there have been both entertaining and enlightening moments...hopefully, more enlightening as I have endeavored to clarify/explain/share items from the Chaplain Corps side of things -- which your average member has had no exposure to.
Hate to return to those "pesky" numbers that you feel have no meaning....these appointments were all made
once the word got out about the changes the Chaplain Corps was making in the "status quo". People who did not meet the CDI requirements prior to 2014/2015 began applying. We took seriously the concerns voiced by commanders (and members) regarding the "religious endorsement" and the academic requirement and did something about it to make appointments for CDIs more attainable (letter of recommendation from anyone -- except squadron commander which is a given on F35A -- and tying the academic requirement to the existing TLC requirement in the CAPR 52-16 for a local squadron -- and adding the Basic Instructor Course - available on-line CAP....a specialty track for CDIs has been developed by CDIs that is far more substantial than the previous one.
There are challenges that CAP faces in all aspects...and I know that the Chaplain Corps is not sitting by idly.
OK, seriously - how can there be "incomplete packets" you need a F35 and a Goodfella letter.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2016, 01:52:59 AM
OK, seriously - how can there be "incomplete packets" you need a F35 and a Goodfella letter.
Try at the Wing Chaplain's desk...either the TLC or BIC has not been completed or the Goodfella letter is missing
Try at the Region Chaplain's desk...the Wing Commander did not sign off.
Try the packet gets sent directly to NHQ minus approving signatures at Wing and Region.
It has happened :(
The statement was made, "OK, seriously - how can there be "incomplete packets" you need a F35 and a Goodfella letter."
If the submitted letter of recommendation does not meet the criteria as prescribed in CAPR 265-1, 7.a.(2), the letter cannot not be accepted by the wing chaplain, such as in the case of a letter being written by a family member or a CAP member from the applicant's community.
The last three Chaplain Corps applications I had to be approve a few months ago (when I was a wing chaplain) were done in an expeditious manner because all three of them had all what it was required at the time they submitted their application. From the time I received the package to the time the appointment was made by the Chief, it only took...
Chaplain 1 - 11 days
Chaplain 2 - 9 days
CDI - 7 days
In the case of other chaplains, it took months, some times more than a year, to get them appointed. Part of the reason was due because of an incomplete package, e.g., no endorsement received by NHQ or delay in receiving educational transcripts, etc.). However, since the current Chief took the helm, the approval process has been expedited.
Quote from: Damron on December 11, 2016, 06:56:37 PM
I said nothing about anyone's intellect.
Technically, you did. If someone were to say about me "You know....Steve is nothing but a forensic trivia expert", it is TECHNICALLY correct at its core but it ignores the reality of what one can accomplish with their knowledge. Everything at some level is effectively trivia. The difference between practical knowledge and trivia is the intellect that the person has to apply that trivia to a real world situation (drunken games of Trivial Pursuit notwithstanding).
And while there are questionable and even predatory schools out there the same can be said for a lot of technical training programs (ITT Tech for example). Hell, for the most part, a large majority of what CAP relies upon isn't independently accredited. If we're talking the "it suffices because we say it does" no longer being valid then we might as well close up show. That's one reason why it's so hard to change stuff as the external standards move on.
QuoteLets not be afraid to question anything in CAP that doesn't make sense.
I am many things. Afraid of calling out bull**** when I encounter it is not one of them. Chappie can attest that he and I have had complicated and lengthy discussions about my disagreement with certain aspects of the way the chaplain program is structured. As a (soon to be) CAP officer, a professional and as a man, I am obligated to speak up in a polite, professional and respectful manner. Does it mean I will get my way? No. Does it mean that because a reasonably competent person can sit back and pick holes in the way specific matters are handled or the way this or that is done or how a few individuals behave that the whole system should be scrapped? Certainly not.
QuoteDon't be afraid to question the future role of the Chaplaincy in CAP.
To use an example, let's say that you have an officer who is absolutely unwilling to listen to any criticism of their opinion and results to encouraging folks to use a nihilistic fallacy (example: "change for the sake of change"), appeal to novelty ("it's inherently better than the old way because it's new"), a non-argument argument ("draw your own conclusions"), false dichotomy, guilt by association (or the more extreme form of this which is the heavy-handed and almost Machiavellian "for my my enemies, nothing" fallacy) and an appeal to paranoia ("We have to do something so don't be afraid to...."). The everything about the way the person carries themselves- at least with regards to a particular matter- reeks of
mala fides. Do you trust that person to have your best interests at heart? Do you have faith (no pun intended) that they will not cut and run the moment things do not go their way? Do you follow their advice? Do you want anything to do with them? Most people are going to say 'no'. They may be, at heart, an awesome and incredibly ethical person but if they cannot act in a way that is what is expected out of a professional then not much else matters. I learned this myself the hard way as a young EMS supervisor.
At risk of violating my rule against counseling someone in public, I must say something here. The only thing I am questioning the wisdom of a future role in CAP for out of this discussion is you. That's not because of anything other than your behavior. You may be the brightest person on this discussion because you are obviously not lacking in intelligence so far as I can tell. You may know better than every person in the organization. None of that matters if you carry yourself in a way that makes people think you have no respect for anyone who dares to disagree or are willing to badger someone into going along with your plan.
You have to remember that when you speak, you are not only representing yourself but your unit, the organization and everyone involved with it. Especially when you are criticizing others in the organization, you absolutely have to lead by example and with all due respect, you simply are not doing that here. Regardless of how antitheistic you might be in your personal life, unless you can demonstrably argue unequivocal harm or waste of resources, then you really are lacking firm footing for your argument. Thus, your personal feelings need to be kept in check and probably to yourself the moment you don a uniform or speak in a setting where your words are tied to something bigger than yourself if you cannot express them in a professional manner. Part of that is also knowing when to admit you have overstepped and apologize or fall on your sword in extreme cases.
My advice- for what it is worth- is that you might be wise to watch your tone, learn to pick your battles and to remember that attacking uphill against an entrenched and competent enemy (no offense Chappie) is almost always a losing proposition. Even if you are the most skilled leader and tactician out there, sometimes you have to let a fight go rather than letting tactical goals drive strategic decision-making. People including probably the greatest military mind and one of the finest gentlemen this country has ever produced, Robert E. Lee, have struggled with it at times (two words: Pickett's Charge).
You (hopefully) live and you learn. That's all that can be asked of a person and a professional.
OK, we're going to click this off for a couple of days, until some of you can cool off a bit. The arguments are going in circles, and no one is convincing anyone else to change their opinion.
If someone has something fresh to present, PM me, and we'll turn it back on.