CAP Field Grade Officers

[RiverAux]

One of the issues I've complained about is folks coming into CAP on professional appointments who never do any of the CAP senior member development programs and in particular don't get involved in any of the specialty tracks. 

Well, I decided to take a look at my Wing and see how big of a "problem" that might be at the highest levels.  So, I broke out the capwatch database and looked at all our Lt. Cols. and whether or not they have done any specialty track training.  I was actually surprised at the results:

About 60% of Lt. Cols. have at least one Master rating, about 7% have a senior rating, about 11% have a Tech rating, and about 22% haven't completed a rating yet. 

So, if you see a CAP Lt. Col. the chances are pretty good that the person has mastered some aspect of running the CAP program.  However, the fact that about a third of them have not done anything or only very little is worrying.

How about if we step this down to Major?   Only abour 46% of Majors have Mastered a specialty, but if you lump in those that have completed Senior track (36%) about 82% can be assumed to be very competent in some aspect of running CAP and would be where you expect from somebody with that rank.  But, the percentage with little or no experience (18%) is actually only about half that of the Lt. Cols.

So, what this says to me is that if we increase the training requirements in the specialty track program (some are absurdly easy while others are actually either pretty hard or have much longer time-in-position requirements than others), then over time we can expect that most higher level CAP officers will complete the required training.     

Lets turn to completion of the various levels in the senior member training program.  This will give a much better overall view of their accomplishments as it factors in other training programs and command and staff duty assignments. 

With Lt. Cols 48% have completed Levels 1, 2 & 3, 43% have completed Level 4, and 9% completed Level 5.  With Majors 73% have completed Levels 1, 2, and 3, 9% have completed Level 4, and 2% have completed Level 5.  For fun I also looked at Captains to see what percentage have completed Level 2 which is required for promotion to that rank--- A little less than 60%. 

To me this is pretty worrying in that a very high percentage of our leaders haven't done a darn thing to learn about how CAP is supposed to work.  Most obviously either came in based on prior military rank or special appointments. 

Frankly this makes me much more supportive of higher initial training requirements to become active in CAP after joining.  SLS and ECI13 which are now part of Level 2 need to be put in Level 1 to ensure that all CAP officers receive this basic information about how CAP works and basic leadership training.  The SLS should be made into a web-based course and test so that new members wouldn't have to wait for one to be held. 

I'm not opposed to an Iowa-style Officer Training School which would do the above and more, but realisticially it would be easier for us to make these shifts in the training program quickly. 

Then just shift the rest of the requirements down a notch (i.e, the new Level 2 would be what is now Level 3.  This would result in Level 5 actually having some meaning in that it would be necessary to get promoted to Lt. Col.  Right now you don't get anything of value for completing the top level of training other than a nice award. 

[lordmonar]

Or you can simply eliminate advanced promotions.

[mikeylikey]

Agreed, no more advanced promotions!  Everyone non prior service starts out at the same place.  There should be an over abundance of 2nd Lt's not LT Col's!

[RiverAux]

I don't have a problem with that but I prefer to focus on what is possible.  Lets face it, special appointments are not going to go away, especially those for prior military (even if it was for rank they held 40 years in the past). 

I think its clear that our only real shot at getting some people to do training is to make it part of Level 1 which is a pre-requisite for doing just about anything "fun" in CAP. 

I am encouraged that most of these higher CAP officers are participating in the program though. 

[lordmonar]

The only problem is that we can't get the required training for our current system.

[Hawk200]

The only problem is that we can't get the required training for our current system.

Or in a lot of cases, don't get training...

[DNall]

I got no problem with a transition course for Military officers, and really if you did a survey I think you'd find the number of prior officers is quite small overall (maybe not in some units, but most units don't have any prior-service anything from any service). To that end, there's a FEMA course on managing volunteers that's required for emergency managers among others. That might be a requirement you'd look to make part of the matrix.

Far as the stats up top there. I'd wonder if that LtCol numbers are entirely acurate. I'm willing to be a lot of them had a master rating prior to it being computerized. The percentage that've completed Lvl 4 (requires master) is going to be quite high cause there's only a couple other narrow ways to make that grade. I know my record isn't perfect, but who even understands how to fix that crap, or is motivated to if it doesn't matter.

Otherwise, I found the Lvl2 at Capt, and 3/sr at Maj to be disconcerting. You'd expect a little offset at Capt since CIT/ATP/Dr/PhD/MML slots in there, but that should be no more than 15-20%.

I think the program gets stretched much too far just for recruiting purposes & for skills we really don't need in local units or that aren't used by that person. Even so, the travesty of it is that we further promote people past that initial point w/o requireing them to do teh PD req's for the current grade, much less for the one they want to move to. It really is betraying our normal members that work years & years to earn it. I don't minf comensating for their skills & education, but not past Capt & not w/o catching up.

[Dragoon]

It's not just about taking training, it's about NEEDED training.

For example, if I'm going to spend my life in a squadron, do I really need Level 3 and above?  It might be nice, but do I NEED it?

It would be like asking every USAF NCO to complete the War College.

If we had some link between grade and position, it would be easier to figure out what training was needed for every level.  And to FOCUS training efforts on those who need it for the jobs they are in, or are likely to get.

That said, since levels 1 and 2 are focused on the squadron level, there's a heck of a lot more that could be added there to help make good squadron staffers.


And yeah, special promotions just screw things up.  In some cases, it's a recruiting tool for some high speed guy you want.  In other cases, it's a bribe (cough....Congressional Squadron....cough).

[davedove]

I think the main problem with the advanced promotions is that it takes away the main incentive to participate in the PD program.  For instance, if a member receives a professional promotion up to Major, what is his motivation to complete Level III (and prior levels) so that he can be eligible for Major.  Of course, if he wanted to get promoted to Lt. Colonel, he would have to backfill all the training.  Many folks though, as you can see from all the 1st Lieutenants walking around, are perfectly happy to just "do their job" and not get promoted.

Some may pursue the training to get the extra "bling" from the levels, but if they received their promotion based on military service, they've probably already got a fair amount of that.

[Monty]

Hmmm....well, I made it through all of CAP's ProDev levels.  I wear white and gray 99% of the time so I can't get off on the bling of it, I didn't need to get Level V for a promotion, I'm not a former CAP cadet, and I didn't elect to use any of my Air Force credentials to circumnavigate the CAP ProDev requirements

So why did I go all the way to GRW?  Simple...I wanted ALL the tools.  Sort of like when you buy a computer, you'd like your computer to be as up-to-date with all the bells and whistles, even if you've no forecasted need for a few of the options you get (I call it the "Tim Allen" syndrome.)

Or....use the MMR inoculation we should all get...  It isn't likely we'll ever get measles, but you know...if we get exposed to measles, we'll be ready!

Same thing in the CAP.  I wanted to go through and gain as many of the tools as possible, if for any reason, to either (a) re-solidify something I might have learned or (b) learn a new method or way of seeing something in the event I might need it for later.

[Major_Chuck]

I personnally feel that advanced promotions to Major or above should be limited or abolished except in cases where the member is a prior service military officer.   Too often I've seen the 'just add water and presto...instant major' occur for people with little or no CAP experience.  They for the most part haven't experienced or given to the program enough time to warrant the award of advanced rank.

But then this is just my opinion.

[afgeo4]

How about everyone joining as Officer w/ no grade and advanced promotion to grade determined after all requirement for that grade are completed?  The time in grade requirements would be eliminitated. Thus, the person is allowed to fast track to their grade, but we are still left with someone who is trained to their grade.

[SarDragon]

I only see three instant Major promotion opportunities in the 35-5 that fall outside former military grade crossover.

All three come after one year TIG as a Captain in the following professional categories: Health Services, Educators, Legal Officers,  and Finance Officers. One year should be long enough time to get up to speed on CAP specific material to justify possible promotion to Major. It's still in the SqCC's hands to affirm or deny any recommendations for promotions at any time. If you have a CC with ethics problems, it is unlikely any changes to the current system will fix that.

If it ain't broke, we don't need to fix it.

[DNall]

And yeah, special promotions just screw things up.  In some cases, it's a recruiting tool for some high speed guy you want.  In other cases, it's a bribe (cough....Congressional Squadron....cough).

For sure though it gets way out of hand & it's insulting that it's used as a recruiting tool rather than setting a professionally degreed individual into a grade that gives him the span of control necessary to do the job that comes with the degree. You blink & they're a LtCol telling you how to do things. It's counter-productive & loses a lot of credibility in the program.... the justification I've seen printed is that these people (doctors & such) don't have time to do the training... HA, and I do right? Or the skills are so critically needed (who needs a Sq legal officer, HSO or A&P that can't work on the plane, or CFI that won't give lessons, or ATP that isn't going to fly missions or cadets but wants his fm5 yesterday) that we have to bribe them in. Think the whole thing needs an integrity check!!

[Dragoon]

Once we disconnected grade from position, we started down the slippery slope to "grade is a merit badge."

After all, why not make everyone a Lt Col if we can't define what a Lt Col does differently from what a 2d lt does?

[Pylon]

After all, why not make everyone a Lt Col if we can't define what a Lt Col does differently from what a 2d lt does?

Years of CAP experience and PD education separate the two.  Perhaps small differences in some people's minds, but significant enough for me to want to know, when I'm listening to CAP-specific advice, whether the guy/gal is a Level 4 or 5'er with at least a handful of years in or a newbie with 6 months in.

[Dragoon]

I think we're talking past each other - what do we expect a Lt Col to DO that we don't expect a 2d Lt to DO?

For example, we expect a USAF Lt Col to be capable of commanding a squadron, holding UCMJ authority over others, fill staff slots where he is the principle advisor to an 0-6 or 0-7 level commander, etc.

We expect a USAF 2d Lt to perhaps lead a flight, fill an extremely low level assistant staff slot, or operate a single expensive piece of machinery (like an airplane).

So, when we promote a 2d Lt through the ranks to Lt Col, we don't just do it because he went to some schools - we do it because he has proven himself capable of doing Lt Col level jobs.


Now, let's go to CAP.  What do we expect a Lt Col to do?  Exactly the same thing as a second Lt!

Otherwise, we'd turn down any CAP member, regardless of schools he's attended, if he hadn't proven his ability to fill Lt Col level jobs.

But since we don't HAVE Lt Col level jobs (we just have jobs we let anyone fill) we promote anyone.  Regardless of their leadership or staff ability.  As long as they go to school and don't cause trouble, they can do the same thing as a Lt Col that they did as a 2d Lt.

We have ribbons for education level - we don't also need rank.  Why give out two things for the same purpose?  Rank needs to have some kind of connection to level of responsiblity and authority in order to truly be "rank."

[DNall]

I think we're talking past each other - what do we expect a Lt Col to DO that we don't expect a 2d Lt to DO?

For example, we expect a USAF Lt Col to be capable of commanding a squadron, holding UCMJ authority over others, fill staff slots where he is the principle advisor to an 0-6 or 0-7 level commander, etc.

We expect a USAF 2d Lt to perhaps lead a flight, fill an extremely low level assistant staff slot, or operate a single expensive piece of machinery (like an airplane).

So, when we promote a 2d Lt through the ranks to Lt Col, we don't just do it because he went to some schools - we do it because he has proven himself capable of doing Lt Col level jobs.


Now, let's go to CAP.  What do we expect a Lt Col to do?  Exactly the same thing as a second Lt!

Otherwise, we'd turn down any CAP member, regardless of schools he's attended, if he hadn't proven his ability to fill Lt Col level jobs.

But since we don't HAVE Lt Col level jobs (we just have jobs we let anyone fill) we promote anyone.  Regardless of their leadership or staff ability.  As long as they go to school and don't cause trouble, they can do the same thing as a Lt Col that they did as a 2d Lt.

We have ribbons for education level - we don't also need rank.  Why give out two things for the same purpose?  Rank needs to have some kind of connection to level of responsiblity and authority in order to truly be "rank."

That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside. A LtCol for the most part has 15-odd years experience & a master rating. Right from the start that's a level of credibility & knowledge. You know you can trust him with a wide range of responsibilities which do include commanding a Sq, staffing in their spec field at the Wg level at least, mentoring officers... there's exceptions that suck azz, and that's bad quality control, but there's no chance in hell a 2Lt can do the same range of things as a LtCol.

Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

If things functioned well now, you'd have a point that we don't need to recognize rank, but things are horrible now. Look at our leadership picture & tell me this is remotely acceptable? We got NEC saying they literally cannot fill all the Wg CC slots with competent people that meet the min quals because none exist in CAP, or at least they won't take the job. We got how many investigations going, how many problems with aco[censored]ability, BS politics... it goes on & on. That's not even mentioning the total lack of ability to step up on mission leadership at national standards. We're in trouble & we NEED people that can do LtCol work cause there's a lot of it to be done, there always has been it's just been getting ignored cause no one knew how, cared, or could do it.

[Dragoon]

That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside. A LtCol for the most part has 15-odd years experience & a master rating. Right from the start that's a level of credibility & knowledge. You know you can trust him with a wide range of responsibilities which do include commanding a Sq, staffing in their spec field at the Wg level at least, mentoring officers... there's exceptions that suck azz, and that's bad quality control, but there's no chance in hell a 2Lt can do the same range of things as a LtCol.

But they DO!  I've seen 2d Lt Wing Directors of Comms, Wing PAO, etc.  And I've seen Lt Col Assistant Squadron AE officers.  We as an organization don't expect  any level of performance based on grade.  We choose the best available guy for the job, regardless of grade. 

Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

I'm waving the BS flag here.  Show me one 2d Lt in the active duty Air Force who was assigned to an official Lt Col's position in FY 2005.  It just doesn't happen. 

The services often slot one up, occasionally slot one down, but outside of temporary casualty-induced crisis stuff, that 's about it.  That's just not how things run.

As for the "super crappy Lt Col", while no system is perfect, those guys are few and far between.  Why?  Because it takes 16 years of performance (i.e. good efficiency reports) to get promoted.  Going to schools is just a checkmark.  Job performance gets you promoted.

CAP doesn't seem to work that way.  Sit in the class, don't make waves and pin on the rank.

If things functioned well now, you'd have a point that we don't need to recognize rank, but things are horrible now. Look at our leadership picture & tell me this is remotely acceptable? We got NEC saying they literally cannot fill all the Wg CC slots with competent people that meet the min quals because none exist in CAP, or at least they won't take the job. We got how many investigations going, how many problems with aco[censored]ability, BS politics... it goes on & on. That's not even mentioning the total lack of ability to step up on mission leadership at national standards. We're in trouble & we NEED people that can do LtCol work cause there's a lot of it to be done, there always has been it's just been getting ignored cause no one knew how, cared, or could do it.

None of those problems you mention require a military grade structure at all.  It just requires a workable management structure which chooses the right folks for the job, gives them the skills that they need, and holds them accountable.

In other words we need to train, retain and utilize higher level leaders and staffers.  Many volunteer groups do that with no military grade structure.

All the arguments of "we need grade because we're in the Air Force" in no way address the problems you list.

Grade structure really only helps the organization run well when it is tied to responsbility and authority.  That way, everyone must obey folks of higher grade, and those folks become responsble for making things run right. And if they DON'T ensure things are being run right, they get punished right along with the guy who screwed up.   But the problem in CAP continues to be that members often move from positions of high responsibility and authority to lower ones, with doesn't happen in our military.  If you're gonna have grade mean anything in CAP, the system has to account for that.

[Hawk200]

Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

I'm waving the BS flag here.  Show me one 2d Lt in the active duty Air Force who was assigned to an official Lt Col's position in FY 2005.  It just doesn't happen. 

To be fair, Dragoon, DNall never said that 2Lts were filling the places of LtCols. He just said that there are Lt's with the ability to fill those slots. You're demand wasn't reasonable and didn't apply.

CAP doesn't seem to work that way.  Sit in the class, don't make waves and pin on the rank.

Agreed. Positional rank doesn't solve this in any way shape or form. Until there is a testing requirement, those presentations aren't worth a whole lot.

In other words we need to train, retain and utilize higher level leaders and staffers.  Many volunteer groups do that with no military grade structure.

Another valid point. But those groups don't have a history of using miltary rank structure. CAP does. That is indisputable. Trashing it would probably be pretty devastating.

But the problem in CAP continues to be that members often move from positions of high responsibility and authority to lower ones, with doesn't happen in our military.  If you're gonna have grade mean anything in CAP, the system has to account for that.

If you really wanted to solve that movement problem, you can tell people they have to retire. That's the only reason why we end up with a lot of LtCols. There is no mandatory retirement mechanism that takes into account quotas. In the military, people move up, and eventually, they move out. CAP doesn't have that, and most likely, never will.

Anything else about "We have too many LtCol's!" doesn't address the issue. And there are people that will never make it that far anyway, because they refuse to do advanced training. I've met many of them. If people are being promoted without completing that training, you can't blame the people that have legitimately earned it through our system. The promotion system is the issue there.

We don't have postional grade now, but we do have positions. If you ignore your squadron commander because you outrank him, you're wrong, period. No need to deny people advancement in rank because others wish to do it their own way.

In CAP, the authority issues are not really related to grade anyway. It's the human element that is the flaw in any system.