Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2017, 04:46:07 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: Pjoc pararescue orientation
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: Pjoc pararescue orientation  (Read 2551 times)
180185
Newbie

Posts: 2
Unit: SWR-AZ-66

« on: December 21, 2016, 12:39:06 AM »

I am new to cap and I don't know if you have to be 15 to take pjoc or like me I going to be 16 and I haven't been to encampment yet and that's one of the requirements. I am in good physical shape and could improve in time for the summer but can't make because of the cost and the time. So would have to take pjoc when I am 16 or go to AP pjoc. I am so confused and I am interested in the program. 😕😦⁉
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2016, 01:07:25 AM »

Most of these questions, and the 100 more you likely have, are best answered by your local staff.

With that said, the website is pretty clear:
http://ncsas.com/index.cfm/pararescue_orientation_course?show=career_fair&careerFairID=3

You must be 15 years old by 15 July 2017.

You must have completed an encampment, which in your wing was in early June of 2016, and presumably would be around the same
time in 2017.
     http://encampment.azwg.org/
     http://www.facebook.com/AZWGEncampment
In order to attend an encampment, you must complete your first achievement (Curry), which should not be an issue in the time allotted.
There are also several encampments (Kansas, Kentucky, & Illinois) which have encampments in the Winter or Spring.

As PJOC is an NCSA, you must apply for it by 15 January 2017 - you will probably need you local staff to assist yo with that,
and since you will need their approval to go, there is little time to waste to discuss if this is realistic.  http://ncsas.com/

There is money called "CEAP" to assist with the expense of encampments for those in financial need:  https://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/activities/ceap/
Again, you will need your Commander's assistance and approval for this.

There are also various scholarships available, with an application deadline of 31 Dec 2016:
https://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/scholarships/  Same rules apply about help and approval.

And occasionally wings or other groups will help sponsor cadets in need with activity expenses. YMMV in that regard,
good cadet progression, participation, and well-written letters to local VFWs, Legion Halls, or the Lion's club can be very effective.

That makes it possible, but very aggressive, especially for a new cadet in your first year (but not unheard  of).

As a Commander, my suggestion would be on setting a goal of progressing and assimilating as much and as far in CAP
as you can during your first year, and attending an encampment.  By mid-summer you should be or near to being an NCO and
really understand what CAP is about, and whether it is for you.

PJOC is a highly competitive and very demanding High Adventure Activity.  You need to be prepared for the challenge, and
secure in your abilities as a cadet before they will accept you as an applicant.



« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 01:13:00 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Offutteer
Forum Regular

Posts: 123

« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2016, 10:31:32 AM »

The minimum age for PJOC is 15, there isn't a maximum age, except that you'll become a senior when you turn 21, and this is a cadet activity. 

So, go to encampment this summer and then apply for PJOC next summer.  That should give you plenty of time to mow lawns, babysit or get a part-time job to help with the costs of PJOC.

Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,765
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2016, 11:49:38 AM »

PJOC is held in the Rocky Mountains with an altitude of over 5000 feet above sea level. Upon arrival you will be given a PT test to ensure that you'll be able to keep up with HIGH INTENSITY Physical requirements. If you fail the PT test you will be home within 24 hours. a minimal passing score at sea level wont equate to a passing score at PJOC.Find some people who have attended to see what the activity is about and whether you should apply for the course.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 610

« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2016, 02:25:27 AM »

All cadets interested in PJOC / APJOC should keep in mind that apparently the two activities have some sort of waiver from our cadet protection policy (such as using physical conditioning as punishment for discrepancies). If they are not up front about that with you (and your parents), they should be.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,604

« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2016, 11:28:56 AM »

All cadets interested in PJOC / APJOC should keep in mind that apparently the two activities have some sort of waiver from our cadet protection policy (such as using physical conditioning as punishment for discrepancies). If they are not up front about that with you (and your parents), they should be.
What has been your involvement with PJOC?   If you have no first hand knowledge, don't spread RUMINT.

 BTW, this thread is in the wrong forum.
Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 610

« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2016, 12:35:33 PM »

What has been your involvement with PJOC?   If you have no first hand knowledge, don't spread RUMINT.

I've had multiple cadets from my wing attend over the past few years who all tell the same story. I then called one of the activity staff who told the same story as the cadets. I was told by the staff member that they had permission for everything they do at the activity.

While I don't agree with rationale I was given to waive certain aspects of the CPP, NHQ signed off on it and that's way above my pay grade. I just think when you ignore portions of what we consider to be one of the most important regulations in CAP, both cadets and parents should be fully aware of what they're getting into.

For the record, all of the cadets that I know who participated stated it was a demanding activity and one they were extraordinarily proud to have completed.
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,604

« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2016, 12:54:19 PM »

What has been your involvement with PJOC?   If you have no first hand knowledge, don't spread RUMINT.

I've had multiple cadets from my wing attend over the past few years who all tell the same story. I then called one of the activity staff who told the same story as the cadets. I was told by the staff member that they had permission for everything they do at the activity.

While I don't agree with rationale I was given to waive certain aspects of the CPP, NHQ signed off on it and that's way above my pay grade. I just think when you ignore portions of what we consider to be one of the most important regulations in CAP, both cadets and parents should be fully aware of what they're getting into.

For the record, all of the cadets that I know who participated stated it was a demanding activity and one they were extraordinarily proud to have completed.
So, you have no first hand experience. 

I assure you that your info is not correct.  You've stated this in the past and were corrected on it.  Do not perpetuate RUMINT.  There is no "waiver from CPP".
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 05:55:03 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2016, 01:22:34 PM »

CPPT, including PT as punishment, isn't something CAP NHQ can "waive".

Were any of my cadets to return telling this tale, I would immediately report it as per regs to my Wing CC as a CPPT violation.

100% unacceptable.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 610

« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2016, 02:58:16 PM »

CPPT, including PT as punishment, isn't something CAP NHQ can "waive".

When I reported this to my chain of command, the answer I got back was the activity is run by Air Force personnel "who know what they're doing", so NHQ feels what takes place at the activity is acceptable.

They be the boss, so it is what it is.

Saying they have a waiver was a poor choice of words because it suggests a paper trail. It's an implicit waiver in that NHQ knows what they are doing and allows it.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2016, 03:30:09 PM »

Unless they are involved, your chain would have no more knowledge of the situation then you do,
if they are, you'd have to take above or beyond them anyway.

The route-1 on this would have and should be your Wing CC, or perhaps even the Nat IG since this
is an NCSA we're talking about.

If you believe it to be true to the extent you will state it publicly as fact, then you're duty-bound to purse
it beyond a dismissive wave-off by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

And if I was involved in PJOC, I'd want any sniff of something like this to be dispelled immediately lest
it taint the activity's reputation.

Regardless of who is on staff, it's a CAP activity, which means it is bound by CAP regs from end-to-end, just
like any number of other activities which involve members of the military as instructors. The regs are unambiguously
clear that PT as discipline, whether in a group or individually, is 100% verboten, and the expectation is
that all CAP activities operate under that principle.

Anything less insinuates there is "wiggle room" in the prohibition and calls everyone else's integrity into question as well.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,604

« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2016, 03:44:26 PM »

CPPT, including PT as punishment, isn't something CAP NHQ can "waive".

When I reported this to my chain of command, the answer I got back was the activity is run by Air Force personnel "who know what they're doing", so NHQ feels what takes place at the activity is acceptable.

They be the boss, so it is what it is.

Saying they have a waiver was a poor choice of words because it suggests a paper trail. It's an implicit waiver in that NHQ knows what they are doing and allows it.
Quit speculating about things you know nothing about, especially on a subject such as this.  Very simply, NHQ continues to approve this program because it adheres to CPP. 

Let me make it clear, if it wasn't already...
"While PJOC is a demanding course, cadets are never hazed or subject to abuse in any form. The staff includes CAP senior members, Air Force reservists and Air Force instructors – each one a highly qualified and experienced professional. The staff strictly adheres to the guidelines set in the Civil Air Patrol cadet protection program. No one tolerates hazing by either a staff member or a cadet. There are no initiation or “rite of passage” elements in this program.   The nearest thing to a rite of passage for a cadet is completing their first rappel or looking down on the world from the top of a mountain, knowing they’ve accomplished something that most people only dream about...."
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 04:14:24 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2016, 04:12:55 PM »

Unless they are involved, your chain would have no more knowledge of the situation then you do,
if they are, you'd have to take above or beyond them anyway.

The route-1 on this would have and should be your Wing CC, or perhaps even the Nat IG since this
is an NCSA we're talking about.

If you believe it to be true to the extent you will state it publicly as fact, then you're duty-bound to purse
it beyond a dismissive wave-off by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

And if I was involved in PJOC, I'd want any sniff of something like this to be dispelled immediately lest
it taint the activity's reputation.

Regardless of who is on staff, it's a CAP activity, which means it is bound by CAP regs from end-to-end, just
like any number of other activities which involve members of the military as instructors. The regs are unambiguously
clear that PT as discipline, whether in a group or individually, is 100% verboten
, and the expectation is
that all CAP activities operate under that principle.

Anything less insinuates there is "wiggle room" in the prohibition and calls everyone else's integrity into question as well.

It's not that black & white in the new CPP. "Exercise as punishment" is only mentioned in a paragraph about Mismatched Goals & Intensities and is referred to as a "boundary concern."

"(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definition of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling, using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary concerns."

If you read CAPP 52-23 there's all kinds of "wiggle room" on the subject of appropriate training intensity.
Logged
Panzerbjorn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 267
Unit: MER-NC-048

« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2016, 04:53:39 PM »

My son graduated from PJOC in New Mexico this summer at the age of 15. He came back even more motivated, an extremely high esprit de corps, really wanting to do APJOC, and found the niche he wants to be in if he goes into the Air Force.

Whatever their methods, I hope they don't change a thing.  The course is taught by highly professional Air Force special forces personnel and I've seen first hand examples of how much those PJs care about the program and the cadets.  It's not for everyone and you shouldn't expect it to be on the same level as Encampment.  I've even seen PJs come back and demand a participant remove their patch if they did not graduate to standards.  That patch isn't a participation trophy.
Logged
Major
Command Pilot
Ground Branch Director
Eagle Scout
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,287
Unit: Classified

« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2016, 05:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Panzerbjorn
I've even seen PJs come back and demand a participant remove their patch if they did not graduate to standards.  That patch isn't a participation trophy.

That's a foul if they didn't meet the standard to graduate they shouldn't have received the patch or graduated.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,803

« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2016, 05:39:20 PM »

I know a guy who once saw a Cadet who went to PJOC....mother of pearl....can anybody personally involved in the management of this activity chime in? The tales are starting to sound Nazi submarine-like.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 885
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2016, 05:41:37 PM »

I've had a number of cadets attend over the years (two of my cadet officers graduated this past summer for example) and agree with Panzerbjorns comments. Be fit, be squared away, be properly equipped/attired, and most importantly have a suitable mental attitude.


On fitness.
About five years ago, I did have one 17 year old C/LT, a fit, muscular high school football linebacker type, who DNQ'd out on the initial assessment. He just wasn't prepared physically for the specifics of the test. The next summer, he went back, passed with flying colors, and proudly wore his cap at the unit (for one night, one night only, Vasily).  They are serious about sending you home.


On the allegations of intensity mismatch/hazing.
There are valid OPSEC reasons to restrict discussions about TTPs (Tactics Techniques and Procedures) used in the personnel recovery mission (A.Member, please PM me if necessary). These concerns extend even to review of photos of the events (for example, one of my C/MAJs was unable to gain permission to share a PJOC event photo for our annual unit log last week). Sometimes, such restrictions can be seen as necessary safeguards, or may be suspect when questions arise over intensity/student mismatches. Its the responsibility of our designated CAP monitors to monitor training within CPP limits and to screen, review, and send home any candidates who can't keep up with the intensity demanded by the training, as with any event. It is equally as important to make sure that valid OPSEC concerns aren't used as a privacy screen outside of which people suspect misbehavior.


On trusted agents:
"Trust but verify" is the role of any of our trusted CAP agents on site, as well as "avoid even the appearance of impropriety", especially when there's an acknowledged veil from public view. On that basis of trust, I will continue to approve my (selected!) cadets participation, and I have a history (in the '90s) of withdrawing approval (for IACE, back before they fixed their program re: cadet consumption of alcohol). On their track record of progressively fixing such issues, they've rebuilt and retain my trust (but, I watch and listen, as we all should).


V/r
Spam




Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,604

« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2016, 05:44:05 PM »

I know a guy who once saw a Cadet who went to PJOC....mother of pearl....can anybody personally involved in the management of this activity chime in? The tales are starting to sound Nazi submarine-like.
Yes...already have.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 06:15:09 PM by A.Member » Logged
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,803

« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2016, 05:44:25 PM »

My son graduated from PJOC in New Mexico this summer at the age of 15. He came back even more motivated, an extremely high esprit de corps, really wanting to do APJOC, and found the niche he wants to be in if he goes into the Air Force.

Whatever their methods, I hope they don't change a thing.  The course is taught by highly professional Air Force special forces personnel and I've seen first hand examples of how much those PJs care about the program and the cadets.  It's not for everyone and you shouldn't expect it to be on the same level as Encampment.  I've even seen PJs come back and demand a participant remove their patch if they did not graduate to standards.  That patch isn't a participation trophy.

I've known 2 cadets who went. One to NM, one to GWNF. Both came back highly motivated and set on a path to SOF. Both are serving, but not in SOF roles. Apparently, the real deal is a lot tougher than the courses they took. Best advice is to talk to an operator, see what he can do to prep and prep hard for indoc. Hope that motivation sticks with him! Good luck.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Panzerbjorn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 267
Unit: MER-NC-048

« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2016, 06:21:31 PM »

I've known 2 cadets who went. One to NM, one to GWNF. Both came back highly motivated and set on a path to SOF. Both are serving, but not in SOF roles. Apparently, the real deal is a lot tougher than the courses they took. Best advice is to talk to an operator, see what he can do to prep and prep hard for indoc. Hope that motivation sticks with him! Good luck.

It would definitely be interesting.  He wants to do nursing as a civilian career, and since those guys are all registered paramedics, it gives him everything he's looking for.  Yeah, those PJs definitely earn their emblem, and anyone who believes that PJOC is just like the real thing is in for a bit of a shock.  But we'll see.  I'll be proud in whatever capacity he serves, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a Guardian Angel Dad sticker on my back window. :)
Logged
Major
Command Pilot
Ground Branch Director
Eagle Scout
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2016, 08:56:37 PM »

If you read CAPP 52-23 there's all kinds of "wiggle room" on the subject of appropriate training intensity.

If you read CAPP 52-23 there is zero "wiggle room"

CAPP 52-13, page 11:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_023_7B9F3810999BF.pdf

"Drop and give me 20!”
While such corrective physical training has a long and
cherished history in the armed forces, CAP strictly
prohibits
such corrective physical training in our Cadet
Program
because of the differences in training
objectives and outcomes as well as age, training, and
maturity of our cadets when compared to members of
the US armed forces,"
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 885
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2016, 09:44:13 PM »

Equally as much wiggle room for unauthorized additions/mods as in the uniform regs. Hmmm. Interesting perspectives.

(Standing by for the excuses for why uniforms don't matter as much).

- Spam

Logged
DakRadz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,351

« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2016, 09:33:29 AM »

Quote from: Panzerbjorn
I've even seen PJs come back and demand a participant remove their patch if they did not graduate to standards.  That patch isn't a participation trophy.

That's a foul if they didn't meet the standard to graduate they shouldn't have received the patch or graduated.
Consider Vanguard... Everything is for sale. (Note. This is an issue for the military, too, so I'm not placing blame. Just saying it's easy [though wrong] to buy a patch after being sent home or simply not graduating.)
Logged
vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2016, 11:26:51 AM »

If you read CAPP 52-23 there's all kinds of "wiggle room" on the subject of appropriate training intensity.

If you read CAPP 52-23 there is zero "wiggle room"

CAPP 52-13, page 11:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_023_7B9F3810999BF.pdf

"Drop and give me 20!”
While such corrective physical training has a long and
cherished history in the armed forces, CAP strictly
prohibits
such corrective physical training in our Cadet
Program
because of the differences in training
objectives and outcomes as well as age, training, and
maturity of our cadets when compared to members of
the US armed forces,"


Is "Drop and give me 20!" a synonym for "exercise as punishment"? No, it's a single example and the only one given in the pamphlet. Context matters. That section concludes with "The key is to match the appropriate level of military intensity to the particular training to be given, the trainee’s experience and ability, and the environment in which the training is occurring."

Again, the CPP itself states that inappropriately high levels of training intensity such as "exercise as punishment" do not necessarily meet the regulation's definition of hazing or abuse.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2016, 11:37:32 AM »

Is "Drop and give me 20!" a synonym for "exercise as punishment"?

Yes, it obviously is, clearly says so.

Again, the CPP itself states that inappropriately high levels of training intensity such as "exercise as punishment" do not necessarily meet the regulation's definition of hazing or abuse.

Incorrect

CAPR 52-10 Page 8
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_010_2014_10_CAABD5624E9C2.pdf

(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definition
of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling,
using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed
in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary
concerns.


What it says is that "appropriate" intensity is not necessarily hazing.  It then goes on to define "exercise as punishment" as
"inappropriate".
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 11:43:31 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2016, 11:48:36 AM »

Is "Drop and give me 20!" a synonym for "exercise as punishment"?

Yes, it obviously is, clearly says so.

Cite please. I only find that one specific example.

Again, the CPP itself states that inappropriately high levels of training intensity such as "exercise as punishment" do not necessarily meet the regulation's definition of hazing or abuse.

Cites please.

Already did. Here it is again:

CAPR  52-10 section 2-5.b

"(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definition of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling, using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary concerns."
Logged
vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2016, 11:50:29 AM »

Is "Drop and give me 20!" a synonym for "exercise as punishment"?

Yes, it obviously is, clearly says so.

Again, the CPP itself states that inappropriately high levels of training intensity such as "exercise as punishment" do not necessarily meet the regulation's definition of hazing or abuse.

Incorrect

CAPR 52-10 Page 8
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_010_2014_10_CAABD5624E9C2.pdf

(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definition
of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling,
using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed
in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary
concerns.


What it says is that "appropriate" intensity is not necessarily hazing.  It then goes on to define "exercise as punishment" as
"inappropriate".

Are you reading what you're copying and pasting?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2016, 12:02:54 PM »

Yes, which part is unclear?  Or are you seriously suggesting that behaviors which create "boundary concerns"
are "appropriate"?

The whole point of "boundary concerns" is you're not supposed to engage in them.

"f. Boundary Concern. A boundary concern occurs when a member’s action might not be considered
a best practice
(see chapter 2) without meeting the definition of abuse or hazing. CAPP 52-23
contains examples of these best practices and boundary concerns."


Also, I never said "PT as punishment" was "hazing", nor does behavior have to be "hazing" to be prohibited.
*** Edit: per RST training, it is see below...

52-10 uses "boundary concern" specifically to call "knock it off" on behaviors that can quickly become violations, while still
allowing for members to make mistakes.  That doesn't make a given BC behavior or practice "authorized" it just means
you won't be kicked out the first time you get caught.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 12:53:55 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

DakRadz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,351

« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2016, 12:02:58 PM »


What it says is that "appropriate" intensity is not necessarily hazing.  It then goes on to define "exercise as punishment" as
"inappropriate".

Right. But these "inappropriate" intensity levels are NOT hazing outright, they are boundary concerns.

Disclosure: I don't plan to test this out, I'm just debating the regulation.

Edit: Eclipse posted whilst I typed.

1st Lt Raduenz
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 12:15:29 PM by DakRadz » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2016, 12:15:47 PM »

Also...

CAPR 52-16. Page 4
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf

"(2) Methods. The fitness program encourages units to provide drills, games and other activities
that promote physical fitness. Effective 1 September 2014, commanders will schedule time for cadet fitness
training; simply administering the fitness tests described below is not sufficient (see CAPP 52-18, Cadet
Physical Fitness Program, for suggested activities). Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be used
only to improve cadets’ physical fitness
while increasing confidence, teamwork and determination. Fitness
training will not be used as a form of punishment or as a vehicle to teach remedial discipline".


CAPP 52-18, 5
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf
"Prohibitions. Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be used only to further the goal of improving physical fitness
while increasing confidence, teamwork, and determination. Commanders, activity directors, and ranking cadets will
not
use physical training as a form of punishment or remedial discipline."
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 12:21:13 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2016, 12:47:59 PM »

CAPP 52-12 Page 12:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052012_v1_B10D6D4BBA39E.pdf

"Why not push-ups?
Most leaders of cadets understand completely that under CAP’s interpretation of the DoD definition of
hazing, incentive physical training
(sometimes referred to as “push-ups for punishment”) is strictly
prohibited
for the purpose of the CAP Cadet Program."


"On the other end of the spectrum, some leaders of cadets are under the impression that we can never
do push-ups in the Cadet Program. This is a common misconception. Push-ups can be used as a tool
both for physical fitness training (PT), and to build teamwork. However, beware of cause and effect.
Scheduling a random PT session as a result of a failed barracks inspection still violates the CPP, no
matter how tight knit the team becomes in the process."


Also, within the case studies on pages 13, 14, & 17:
"Anticipated Responses: Assigning physical exercise as punishment meets the definition of hazing"
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 12:51:19 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2016, 01:08:39 PM »

Yes, which part is unclear?  Or are you seriously suggesting that behaviors which create "boundary concerns"
are "appropriate"?

Not at all. You said "What it says is that 'appropriate' intensity is not necessarily hazing" which is just incorrect. I twice quoted the section that says inappropriate behaviors may not be considered hazing.

Quote from: CAPR 52-10
f. Boundary Concern. A boundary concern occurs when a member’s action might not be considered a best practice (see chapter 2) without meeting the definition of abuse or hazing. CAPP 52-23 contains examples of these best practices and boundary concerns.

"Might not be considered a best practice"? No "wiggle room" there! Because there are no not-so-best-practices in Civil Air Patrol right?

Also, I never said "PT as punishment" was "hazing", nor does behavior have to be "hazing" to be prohibited.

Fair enough. As a matter of principle I don't disagree with your stance on this. I was just responding to your rather absolute post saying there's no "wiggle room" in the regs and my take is that this whole new "boundary concern" thing introduces a gray area that maybe didn't exist before. The fact that CAPR 52-10 replaces the term "boundary violation" with "boundary concern" bears that out. I don't know anything about pjoc but maybe it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make reference to "appropriate training level intensities" that are tougher than CPFT but do not rise to the level of "PT as punishment".
Logged
vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2016, 01:09:38 PM »

Disclosure: I don't plan to test this out, I'm just debating the regulation.

Me too, obviously.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2016, 01:15:28 PM »

As indicated in the quotes above, 52-10 isn't the only defining reg in this case, that's where
a lot of people get stuck.

52-16 specifically prohibits PT as punishment outright as a concept, hazing or no, and
supporting documents such as the RST pamphlet (nonsense about "Ps" vs. "Rs" notwithstanding")
defines "PT as punishment" as hazing, so prohibited from that vector as well.

There's no way anyone who had the required training for an NCSA or encampment could stand up in a
hearing room and say "That's a gray area" with a straight face, other then on the general principle that
CAP regs are a mess, which they are.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 220

« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2016, 02:56:41 PM »

CAPP 52-12 Page 12:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052012_v1_B10D6D4BBA39E.pdf

"Why not push-ups?
Most leaders of cadets understand completely that under CAP’s interpretation of the DoD definition of
hazing, incentive physical training
(sometimes referred to as “push-ups for punishment”) is strictly
prohibited
for the purpose of the CAP Cadet Program."


"On the other end of the spectrum, some leaders of cadets are under the impression that we can never
do push-ups in the Cadet Program. This is a common misconception. Push-ups can be used as a tool
both for physical fitness training (PT), and to build teamwork. However, beware of cause and effect.
Scheduling a random PT session as a result of a failed barracks inspection still violates the CPP, no
matter how tight knit the team becomes in the process."


Also, within the case studies on pages 13, 14, & 17:
"Anticipated Responses: Assigning physical exercise as punishment meets the definition of hazing"

As I've demonstrated, those highlighted statements are not consistent with the CPP itself. The CPP should be modified to reflect the above and "PT as punishment" should not be mentioned in the context of "boundary concerns".
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,103

« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2016, 06:59:22 PM »

Sorry to be late to the party on this one. 

From our perspective, the policy seems clear:  We do not permit the use of push-ups (or other forms of exercise / calisthenics) for disciplinary purposes in our cadet program.

"Drop and give me 20," however, almost never amounts to hazing, but will at least be a boundary concern and an opportunity for counseling and re-training on appropriate techniques.

I agree that the policy could be made plainer and easier to find, and we will do that during the current CP publication re-engineering effort.  The policy is unlikely to change, but we can all agree it should be easy to understand, and easy to find in our publications.

Ned Lee
COL, CAP
National Cadet Programs Manager
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,803

« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2016, 08:10:00 PM »

Thanks NED
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: Pjoc pararescue orientation
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.419 seconds with 21 queries.