CAP Field Grade Officers

[ZigZag911]

The big problem is the way some wings have begun working the system to the advantage of the untried, untrained and inexperienced.

Since there are NO firm requirements for appointment to group command, wing command, or other senior positions that carry grade (legislative liaison and/or legislative squadron commander), it is entirely possible to take a lieutenant, or even  a senior member without grade, name them group commander, make them a major (as long as they have ECI 13 done).

The legislative posts get one lt col WITHOUT ANY training requirements beyond Level 1!

I can even top that....at least one of these ersatz majors became a lt col on a 'waiver' which apparently made much of the individual's basic office skills as the "special qualification"...this was a case of 1 Lt to Lt Col in about 14 months with NO  prior military.prior CAP/professional background/mission skills....nothing!

[flight dispatcher]

"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."

Dnall, I take it you have had some CEO 2LT's?

Kindest regards

[ZigZag911]

"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."

Dnall, I take it you have had some CEO 2LT's?

Kindest regards

I have, CEOs or owners of small to mid sized businesses -- and they are indeed often a safety hazard waiting to happen...think because they know how to run a business and earn money (worthwhile abilities), they know all about everything (like pilots, actually...in fact, entrepreneur-pilots are THE WORST!)

[lordmonar]

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 responsibility and authority in order to truly be "rank."

Where the disconnect between the USAF and CAP is....when they promote someone...not only do they think he is capable of doing the job at the next level...they make him do it.

CAP has no mechanism to do that.  Sure Maj Goodjob finished all his schools and did his time...now he is ready for promotion.....but we don't make him change jobs...as the USAF would do.

You are saying that in order for the good Major to get promoted he must take on a harder job.  Okay.  I can see that to a point.  So....Do you do your next level of training before or after you get the job?  Now we would be putting people into jobs that they don't have the training for.  If you require members to become qualified for the job (i.e. get the next level of training) and don't reward them with the rank....they will never ever volunteer for it.

Let's say we really made the training tough, meaningful and timely.....instead of just an attend and you pass (which I think is the real problem).....and you have a squadron full of Lt Cols and everyone else was actively pursuing his PD as fast as they can.

What exactly is wrong with that?  You have a squadron full of over qualified Lt Cols doing Captain and Lt work.  Who does it harm?  Does it make us look unprofessional?  I don't think so...not if you make sure that each and everyone of them is truly ready to take on a Lt Col Job...does it matter that they are not doing that job?

Another problem in your analogy is that Just because we have Lt Cols doing Lt's jobs...does not mean we need to have LTs who can do the Col's job.

"Rank" does not have to have anything to do with the level of responsibilty...not at all.  It can also be a reward for a job well done.  It is mark of longevity and seniority.

Again...if we are going to go back to this same argument....let's just go with...you wear the rank based on your position and everyone else is a FO1-FO5 based on their PD completion.

That way we don't have to worry about any of this.  Only commanders will wear rank.  Capt for squadrons, Majors for Groups, Lt Cols for Wings, Cols for Region and General for National.

Deputy commanders will wear one rank down.

All the staff officer just wear their FO ranks.

NO advanced promotions, no CAP NCO's and Spaatzens are FO1 just like the rest of us.

[flyguy06]

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. 

Finally RIveraux, I will agree with you onthis pont. I dont agree with members comming in and making ranks and never doing any specialty tracks.

[jacklumanog]

I'm jumping in way late to this discussion, I know.  But, as a direct appointee to Captain when I was admitted to the Chaplain Service, I realize that the new rank can be irritating to some people.

That said, I've done my very best to earn my grade and then some since I have been in the program.  I finished ECI 13, Yeager, Levels 2 & 3 and am a Master in my specialty track  --  and my 2nd year anniversary is coming up on 1 March. 

I know that there are some who don't do much to earn their grade or advance once they get their grade, but cut some of us direct appointees a slack who are really trying to earn their place. 

[Dragoon]

"Rank" does not have to have anything to do with the level of responsibilty...not at all.  It can also be a reward for a job well done.  It is mark of longevity and seniority.

Actually, yes it does.  The senior officer present has a responsibility to take charge in the absence of a clear chain of command.

For example, the ranking guy in the prison camp is in charge.  Or at D-Day, the ranking officer you ran into after you jumped in became the commander until things get sorted out.  (there are of course exceptions for chaplains and the like, but this is 90% solution)

If you hold any kind of leader's grade and you pass by a screwed up situation without taking action, you can be held accountable. By accepting the promotion, you accept a level of generic responsiblity and authority over every one of lesser grade.  You become one of the keepers of the standards, with the authority to enforce.

This is why it's a UCMJ offense to disobey a superior officer.  Note it says nothing about that officer having to be in your chain of command.

Case in point - a bunch of years back I read about a group of SEALS on a commercial flight got drunk and rowdy.  A Lt Commander Chaplain in uniform was on the plane, and took no action to settle them down.  Not only did the sailors get in trouble - the Chaplain did as well.  He got a letter of reprimand.

He argued that this was unfair because (a) he was a chaplain and (b) the sailors weren't from his unit.

The response was "You were the ranking officer present - you should have gotten involved."  The reprimand stuck.


CAP could benefit from such a model.  If a major had the authority to fix screwed up stuff AND the responsiblity to do so, it would add a large number of roving quality assurance agents to the program.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen folks pass by something that was completely screwed up because "those guys aren't from my squadron."

The REASON rank is worn on the military uniform is to identify the authority that person has over all of lesser grade.  If that authority was only over his own folks, there would be no need for the insignia - we all know who our boss is.  The insignia is there for the people who don't know you personally - but may have to follow your orders.

Of course, the key is ensure that the folks who wear the grade insignia can handle all of this authority and not misuse it.  And that comes down to training and selection.  The best way to handle this is to link grade to both level of training and position.  And then hold them accountable (there's the responsiblity thing again) for exercising their authority to make CAP better.  Screw up and lose the job (and the grade).

Then again, we could also decide we don't want generic authority and responsiblity in CAP.  And if we do so, then we either ditch the USAF grade insignia entirely or keep it and constantly deal with the misunderstandings it causes.

[Dragoon]

Again...if we are going to go back to this same argument....let's just go with...you wear the rank based on your position and everyone else is a FO1-FO5 based on their PD completion.

That way we don't have to worry about any of this.  Only commanders will wear rank.  Capt for squadrons, Majors for Groups, Lt Cols for Wings, Cols for Region and General for National.

Deputy commanders will wear one rank down.

All the staff officer just wear their FO ranks.

NO advanced promotions, no CAP NCO's and Spaatzens are FO1 just like the rest of us.

I think you'd find the need to use commissioned ranks for key staff positions.  Both as an incentive AND because these guys sometimes need authority (for example, while the Director of Communications isn't technically in the chain of command, he sometimes needs to direct  squadron comms officers.

And you could still, if you wanted, have advanced promotions to various FO grades. 

Plus I'd recommend setting up FOs like Army Warrants - where they don't really salute or call each other sir.  The FO-5s get a measure of informal respect for their experience and training, but we focus our customs and courtesies on the serving commissioned officers.

[RiverAux]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen folks pass by something that was completely screwed up because "those guys aren't from my squadron."

And I've seen a CAP senior member demoted for pointing out a uniform problem to someone not in their squadron (No further details will be provided).