Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2017, 05:04:22 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Senior Promotion Barriers
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: Senior Promotion Barriers  (Read 8862 times)
ourpobox
Recruit

Posts: 13
Unit: MER-VA-108

« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2017, 08:06:40 AM »

I have jumped through every PD hoop given, and now I have a PDO with more ego than anything else, refusing to help me with my check off for my Senior Rating in my Specialty track. Reason given: I dont have the time to read the regulations to ensure that you know what you are talking about. Went to Wing, was told, that is a a Squadron level issue, and ring around the Cessna begins

I'm not sure if this is an option in your setting, but I've been working with others in the Wing to peer-mentor one another and ensure that we are meeting the requirements.  We document our knowledge, training and experience with another member at a higher level than we are -- likely fulfilling THEIR requirement to mentor another to that level -- and write up what we've found.  They should be able to take THAT to their PDO/Commander and get approval for the next level. 

I don't expect my PDO to know EVERY reg to the degree they can sign off on my Specialty Tracks....they certainly can't be expected to know every Specialty to be able to evaluate my skill...even if they know the reg.  That is why I think this is a good plan.  I've done it with at least three others in 3 different Specialty Tracks.

I hope this helps a bit.
Logged
Jaison009
Seasoned Member

Posts: 263
Unit: SW-AR-040

« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2017, 12:13:20 PM »

As a squadron PDO, I fully agree. Well said.

I have jumped through every PD hoop given, and now I have a PDO with more ego than anything else, refusing to help me with my check off for my Senior Rating in my Specialty track. Reason given: I dont have the time to read the regulations to ensure that you know what you are talking about. Went to Wing, was told, that is a a Squadron level issue, and ring around the Cessna begins

This is a Command issue and that's where you should take it.

Sounds like this is a "repair / replace" decision in regards to the PDO, since the above in bold is literally and his only job.
Logged
Jaison009
Seasoned Member

Posts: 263
Unit: SW-AR-040

« Reply #42 on: April 09, 2017, 12:46:14 PM »

I am one of those stuck between Capt and Maj now. My rank date was 2JAN15 so I just barely missed the grandfather date and now my 26 months towards my 36 months is 48 and now I need L3 and L4 to promote to Major. I almost chose not to renew membership due to knowing the new requirements have pinned me between a rock and a hard place and my thoughts of topping out at Major are pretty well gone. I am already limited in my time and activity, but my time as a former cadet keeps me coming back (at least for the next year).

In light of the fact that grade confers no authority, responsibility, or personal monetary reward, the entirety of the CAP grade schema has
become very self-defeating, especially for those who are stuck on the bubble and now have to get things done by next year, with many of
those members, especially for the field grades, being literally the last bastions of experienced members CAP absolutely cannot afford to lose
given its current retention vector.

One thing a lot of people don't realize, or choose to ignore until they are in the thick of it, is that you can take the time, make the effort,
and spend the money, and still not get promoted..."because".  This situation can be one of the most demoralizing, counter-incentives
to continued membership of any in the CAP toolbox, and it happens all the time.

A member who quits because they feel slighted or unappreciated when the Major or Lt Col door closes takes 10 years or more to re-grow, assuming
they are ever replaced.

10 years. 

Members, as of writing this, are human, and given to the frailties of vanity, ego, even jealousy.  That's a given, and that knowledge is actually
one of the drivers behind >why< there is a CAP grade schema in the first place. Namely Napoleon's famous quote:
"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." Recognition of accomplishment is all CAP can offer of a tangible nature,
and despite the rhetoric to the contrary (which has ignored the reality for decades, if not longer), CAP grade >is< reward for work done, >not<
expectation of more responsibility, because there is no "expectation of more responsibility", in fact, the regulations actually prohibit
that very idea.

As we've seen time and again, both here and in person, people may "serve quietly", but they want and need recognition
in equal measures to those they view as peers, and even more importantly, those they feel don't contribute as much.
Unrecognized for too long, those people then quit quietly.

The organization as a whole would be much better off to leave grade for adult members by the curb and focus
on Professional Development as a value in and of itself, or at the least, make grade as a given based on PD and time.

Few are the members who pursue PD for its own sake, owing at least as much to the inconsistent nature of the
training itself and those presenting it.  For every TLC that ignites squadrons, there are ten which are barely tolerable,
presented by members who skimmed the material over coffee and have never worked with cadets.

For every RSC with a strong rep, there's at least one which is (or was) more of a band-camp for the staff and an SLS/CLC
rehash, versus any real preparation for staffing a wing or region.

On the whole, Members pursue PD to get promoted, and far too many at the last minute.  Absent promotions, most wouldn't bother.

Were grade left at the curb, and real requirements put into place regarding training and proficiency, CAP would be much better
off in the long run.

What it has today is another mess - a large number of members who will continue to serve but always feel they got "cheated"
out of their last promotion, mostly piling up at Captain, coupled with a much smaller number of FGOs who may or may not
have any more knowledge or ability, but were able to take the time for, not to mention could afford the cost of, the RSC and NSC.

As we discussed when the new requirements were announced, Level 4 and 5, not to mention Major and Lt Col, are now as much about
writing a check as any value the member brings to the organizaiton.

You see it already in the language here, and it comes up more and more in person as August 2018 gets nearer...

"Guess I'm stuck at Captain."

"I'll be a lifer Major."

...as if a door is closing unfairly (which it is), not to mention the fact that any new member doing the math
has to realize that the odds of exceeding Captain for anyone joining after Aug 2012, are much smaller then they were before, if they
exist at all, yet NHQ has done nothing to characterize the new climate or even really address it.

One has to wonder why, when pondering retention issues, this doesn't even appear to be on the list, despite the fact that
Unit CCs in the trenches have to deal with it on a regular basis.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,925

« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2017, 07:37:25 PM »

Riveraux, you don't have to attend your Region Staff College, you can attend a closer one to you if there is one?  Just a thought?

That has been considered, but given my overall apathy regarding CAP the last few years I haven't explored that lately. 
Logged
ProdigalJim
Seasoned Member

Posts: 499
Unit: MER-VA-082

Aviation Week
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2017, 08:13:46 PM »


Not everyone gets paid vacations. And adding to what the Major said, for many of our dedicated seniors a week at RSC is a week they're not spending at a higher-value (to them) CAP activity - this is pretty much where I'm at.

I hear this a lot, so I looked it up and it sure ain't pretty:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/paid-leave-in-private-industry-over-the-past-20-years.htm

An analysis by an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics compared 2012 to 1992-1993 to see how vacation and leave patterns changed over two decades. It found that overall fewer workers get paid vacations now than did 20 years ago -- 77% of all workers today versus 82% in 1992-1993.

Those numbers are much worse for part-time workers and those who work for employers with fewer than 100 employees: nearly a third of those who work for smaller employers did not have access to paid vacations, compared with the quarter who were shut out from paid vacations two decades earlier.

So I wonder if CAP has more than its expected share of members whose employment falls into those categories (part-time, smaller employer)? And if so, maybe we need to adjust our protocols internally to reflect that, as a way to address dissatisfaction and retention?

I'll confess I was surprised, and feel bad that I was. I've had pretty generous vacation benefits for about 15 years or so, and really didn't have to make a choice like RSC vs. my one-and-only week off with the family. I'm very fortunate...and apparently even more fortunate than I originally knew.
Logged
Jim Mathews, Maj., CAP
Commander, VAWG Group 3
My Mitchell Has Four Digits...
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,675
Unit: of issue

« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2017, 09:07:45 PM »

It is a problem.

In my previous job I got a week of vacation. ONE.  So a day off here that wasn't a sick day to make a trip (ie. National Conference) or whatever, and now you can't even take a long weekend. Terribly limiting.

My current job I get three weeks, and my boss is a little casual about things like an afternoon off for a doctor's appointment or an IEP meeting, so "whew."  (I'm in IT, so, you know, that unexpected weekend long server outage ...)

But I do know plenty of folks that cannot do that.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
LTC Don
Seasoned Member

Posts: 354
Unit: MER-NC-143

JoCo CAP
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2017, 08:28:16 AM »

I maxed out quite sometime ago, but when I saw the change, I was terribly disappointed.  It seems quite counterproductive to do something like that and then complain about senior member Airman retention.

I can specifically remember when our membership numbers were at 68,000 plus.  Now we are down to 56,000+.  Sad state of affairs.

If the crystal palace occupiers thought PD needed an overhaul, then the quality of training should have been looked at, not how many years someone holds a grade.

This whole program needs to be reset back to previous levels.  Now.
Logged
Donald A. Beckett, Lt Col, CAP
Commander
MER-NC-143
Gill Rob Wilson #1891
Al Sayre
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,512
Unit: SER-MS-001

Mississippi Wing
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2017, 08:58:04 AM »

Another thing is the "real cost"of attending.  You need to add in the cost of that week's vacation.  That's 40 hours of the members paycheck they are spending on CAP stuff.  If they make $25/hr, that's an $1000 donation to CAP that's not tax deductable...
Logged
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787
CAPDCCMOM
Seasoned Member

Posts: 244

« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2017, 11:16:12 AM »

^^^^ Also loss of income is not the only factor, You also have to pay for meals and lodging, easily racking up another $1000. Grade is now based on the pay to play system.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,061

« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2017, 11:57:09 AM »

And in a >lot< of cases, the inability to attend RSC or NSC isn't due to the member not being fully invested,
it's because they >are< fully invested and are already burning that vacation time (or kitchen pass) on encampments,
flight academies, NESA, or similar activities, not to mention running squadrons and the like.

As much as I dislike waivers, special appointments, and mission skills promotions, there ought to be a way for
members with relevent experience to get credit towards various PD.

Served X number of years as Unit CC, Group CC, running major activities, or primary in staff jobs or key roles?
The SLS/CLC/RSC or even NSC waivers should be on the table.  No one who has served successfully as a Unit CC
is going to get much out of SLS or CLC - that train left the station when someone decided it was OK for
a member without those sessions to be appointed as CC in the first place, yet far too many Unit CCs get stuck
on their own, well-deserved promotions, because they didn't take the time to "get theirs while everyone else was...".

They wait until they "have time", which generally means after they step down, and then get the "Well you're clearly
stepping back..." speech, which is 100%,  Grade A fertilizer in a CAP paradigm.

CAP will punch a ticket as high as Major for a newb with the right degree but zero relevent CAP experience, but
there's no allowance for members actually running things. That's not right.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 12:01:00 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
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.

Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,120

« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2017, 01:16:48 PM »

I have been concerned about the PD costs (both time and treasure) for some time.  I wrote an extensive AAR after my stint at staff college, which cost me well over $1k after airfare, motel, food, and course fee.

A significant part of the problem is locating a "pot of money" to use to help defray PD costs.  I've scrubbed the CAP budget pretty extensively over the years (including my time on the BoG Audit Committee), and the only path forward I could suggest is allowing the use of appropriated funds for senior training in the same way we use it to underwrite costs for things like Cadet Officer School.

The problem is that the AF does not believe there is existing authority to spend the funds for seniors.  it would require some revisions to the SOW and possible some sort of legislative fix, both of which take a lot of time and effort.  From the AF perspective, they have provided a "no-cost alternative" by way of ACSC and War College via distance learning.  The fact that those alternatives don't seem to offer much in the way of CAP-specific training is less important to them than the fact that they are free.  (There is also the whole BA thing, but they are also not very sympathetic in that regard, either.)

So until we can invest the time and effort to change the SOW (a significant effort, BTW) I don't see a lot of relief in the short run for seniors with average means.  As others have noted, the "pay to play" system greatly limits the officers available for senior leadership slots.  That affects all of us.

Ned Lee
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,061

« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2017, 01:36:56 PM »

As others have noted, the "pay to play" system greatly limits the officers available for senior leadership slots.

No, it limits promotion of the officers who are filling those slots and doing the job anyway, despite PD or grade.
And that is the real problem.  CAP has no issue partaking of people time, treasure, and initiative, it just doesn't have
a clue how to treat those same people in regards to recognition of their efforts.

"Sure, you can be Wing DCP, but a Major? Sorry, no RSC, and you missed the Wing Conference because you were at all those
enacmpments...Anyway, did you finish up your unit visits and activity plans yet? You're doing' a great job, Brownie!"


That fiction and fallacy should be fixed before we start trying to burn appropriated funds on training which is "inconsistent"
at best in regards to its quality and moreso applicability.

If CAP wants to actually have a system in which training and PD level is required to hold jobs at various levels,
fine, accept that, and the ramifications of that decision, if, on the other hand, the status quo is to be maintained
(where members with wet ID cards and no CAP or military experience are appointed to Wing staff roles because
they are the one and only), CAP should stop playing "pretend" with grade and PD in regards to its place and its importance.

The current stance penalizes our man of our active members while in some cases rewarding those with little organizational
input or effect but plenty of free time.

And like access to AAFES, ACSC and War College might still be technically an option, but since it isn't available for
everyone, shouldn't be mentioned as much of an option at all.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
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.

Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,120

« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2017, 02:11:36 PM »

As others have noted, the "pay to play" system greatly limits the officers available for senior leadership slots.

No, it limits promotion of the officers who are filling those slots and doing the job anyway, despite PD or grade.
And that is the real problem. 

Bob, I'm not sure we really disagree here.  Just a different way of expressing the same thought.  I can only agree that promotion is limited by PD level, and for many officers, it is difficult to attend the required schools for promotion, and further agree that many officers cannot take ACSC or the AWC.

And I suspect we agree that completion of ACSC or AWC has limited direct application to CAP in any event.

What I'm a little fuzzy about is your proposed solution to the situation.  Could you expand on your thoughts?
Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,620

« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2017, 02:16:44 PM »

If AF correspondence courses are considered equal, can we add at least an on-line RSC as an option (and not give wing commanders the option to screw with their members, like they do now with the online SLS/CLC options)? If the networking is really that big of a deal (and it shouldn't be, at least not worth $1k and a week of vacation time), make it a discussion course.

Besides, if you really want to network on a region/national scale, there are plenty of national activities that could use your help instead.
Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 751

« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2017, 03:35:01 PM »

If AF correspondence courses are considered equal, can we add at least an on-line RSC as an option (and not give wing commanders the option to screw with their members, like they do now with the online SLS/CLC options)? If the networking is really that big of a deal (and it shouldn't be, at least not worth $1k and a week of vacation time), make it a discussion course.

Besides, if you really want to network on a region/national scale, there are plenty of national activities that could use your help instead.

Agreed.  I would actually say that SLS/CLC are more important in regards to networking.  Getting to know people in your own Wing is much more important to me than meeting someone from the other side of the country.  If SLS/CLC/UCC can be done online then why can't RSC and NSC? 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,061

« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2017, 03:52:28 PM »

What I'm a little fuzzy about is your proposed solution to the situation.  Could you expand on your thoughts?

Make things equal.

For starters, remove the subjectivity of promotions (perhaps with the exclusion of pending disciplinary actions) to
insure that anyone who does make the effort isn't disapproved for promotion "because".  If it's not in 35-5,
it can't be considered, suggested, or required - just like any other volunteer organization which values member initiative
and retention over "guarding the field grades".

Next, either find a way to open ACSC & War College to everyone like they used to be, or eliminate them from being options
to residential schools.

Remove the requirements to attend Conferences from PD.  These have no relevance to PD whatsoever, (being 
aholdover from the days when VHF nets were a news source), become impediments to progression, and are resented by a lot
of people who either can't go, or get dragged to day of listening to less-informed, less-active people pontificate about CAP.

Most importantly, allow for a path to promotion based on performance and service vs. check-writing and attendance.  Perhaps keep the
PD tracks largely as-is and make them the focus of progression, with staff service as the primary.  Annual OPRS with a point scale that turns into
your next grade instead of a squishy narrative no one will read.  Promotability would be obvious, problem children would bubble up, and personality
issues in either direction could be addressed when they occur instead of 3 years down the line when you find out the guy you didn't get along with
at encampment is now somehow on the Wing promo board and will decide you don't get oaks because he thinks "bricks are maroon, not red".

"Subjectivity in reward and assignment" is what kills a volunteer organization.  Objectivity and transparency is a big part of sustaining one.

Problem solved.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 03:57:32 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
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.

Paul Creed III
Forum Regular

Posts: 190
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2017, 03:52:35 PM »

If AF correspondence courses are considered equal, can we add at least an on-line RSC as an option (and not give wing commanders the option to screw with their members, like they do now with the online SLS/CLC options)? If the networking is really that big of a deal (and it shouldn't be, at least not worth $1k and a week of vacation time), make it a discussion course.

Besides, if you really want to network on a region/national scale, there are plenty of national activities that could use your help instead.

Agreed.  I would actually say that SLS/CLC are more important in regards to networking.  Getting to know people in your own Wing is much more important to me than meeting someone from the other side of the country.  If SLS/CLC/UCC can be done online then why can't RSC and NSC?

As someone who works at one of the top public universities in the nation in online education, CAP could convert all of the PD courses to quality online courses. Note the use of the word "quality" which is not dropping a PowerPoint on a webpage with a simple quiz and calling it a day. I mean, let's hire a someone with proper training in instructional design and use a real learning management system and let's do this right. The amount of money to do this right is a drop in the bucket in terms of the volunteer time that is lost when devoted members pop smoke and exfil.
Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2017, 03:54:39 PM »

If AF correspondence courses are considered equal, can we add at least an on-line RSC as an option (and not give wing commanders the option to screw with their members, like they do now with the online SLS/CLC options)? If the networking is really that big of a deal (and it shouldn't be, at least not worth $1k and a week of vacation time), make it a discussion course.

Besides, if you really want to network on a region/national scale, there are plenty of national activities that could use your help instead.

Agreed.  I would actually say that SLS/CLC are more important in regards to networking.  Getting to know people in your own Wing is much more important to me than meeting someone from the other side of the country.  If SLS/CLC/UCC can be done online then why can't RSC and NSC?

Twenty years ago, I could agree with the networking rationale. Now, after having done SOS, ACSC, and the Naval War College all by DL, not so much. There were plenty of opportunities to network and with Facething, Skype, Google what ever they call it this week, it was easy to have very valuable "meetings" and class sessions. If the DoD says that you can do your JPME by DL, I'm not sure that CAP's backward thinking is the way to go. Furthermore, if you're spending a mortgage payment to go to one of these CAP colleges, you should be getting something out of it other than a checked box in your OPF. One of the things about the DoD courses is that they award academic credit for their completion. Is that still true with the CAP courses? I'm guessing it's not. Additionally furthermore, some employers will look at a CAP completion certificate and say "Gee, that's swell". Those same employers will pay to have your ACSC certificate framed.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
walter1975
Recruit

Posts: 10
Unit: MER-VA-084

« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2017, 10:50:21 AM »

Concur with Lt Col Creed.  I chaired an online emergency management and disaster science undergraduate and graduate program at a very traditional university for 9 years, and designed 15 online 3 semester hour (40-45 contact hours) courses, and parts of half a dozen others.  The work is in setting up the course design (standard classroom course design is not necessarily portable to online), designing exercises, and writing the materials.  Teaching in this way is labor intensive (in my experience 3 to 1 over a classroom course), but is especially effective if it is heavily discussion based.  Our students felt that they got to know each other better, to know the instructors better, and to better understand the material than in a classroom course.  Pregraduation testing showed that students retained the knowledge and skills taught better than in equivalent classroom courses.  Use of an industry standard learning platform is mandatory - we used Blackboard, and I have also used Moodle, and both offered a high level of flexibility in features.

Instructional design background is very important if you are going to make this sort of effort.  I was lucky that I had experience in the Air Force introduction of ISD in the 1970s, was a weapons instructor course graduate, and had graduated from FEMA's Master Trainer program.  My faculty who were traditional faculty members had a lot of trouble with course design, and I had to do a lot of hands on training to make sure their work was effective.   

It is important to note that in my experience (Florida Wing Squadron Staff School in the 1980s, SLS, CLC, RSC) there is a difference between what we need in CAP for the average member and the military service PME courses (SOS, ACSC, AWC).  CAP courses are training, learning how to do specific jobs, and deckplate leadership.  Military PME can do that - I took an Army Air Defense Artillery basic officer course and learned a lot about Hercules and HAWK employment, and was amazed at how intricate the problems of loading an attack transport are in a Marine Amphibious Warfare course.  But the senior level stuff, especially ACSC and AWC, is education to create a broad worldview for the military officer, not nuts and bolts.  It is valuable, and may become more valuable as we work in a new command relationship with the Air Force, for our senior officers, but it is not a substitute for what most of our members face on meeting night. 
Logged
SM Walter G. Green III, CAP
Finance Officer
Group 4, Virginia Wing
Toad1168
Forum Regular

Posts: 131
Unit: NCR-MO-110

« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2017, 12:12:56 PM »

My issue is the same as others; time away from family, expense, and the rest so I will not rehash that.  I had this conversation with a senior NCO in CAP and mentioned the idea of making it partly online and partly in residence.  Basically making the in residence part fit into a weekend.  I thought a nice happy medium.  The response was that it would cheapen the value of the education in CAP.  It has become painfully obvious that the PD courses are most easily completed by either the very young, just out of college with no family CAP members or the retired with a lot of free time members.  Those of us that must balance work, family, kids, and life, plus fit in our desire to be of service to CAP; have to sacrifice somewhere.  It is a running joke that CAP is the full-time part-time volunteer job. 

With today's technology, our PD system is at best antiquated.  I agree that networking can be accomplished online and its not necessary to sit and listen to endless stories of the old days of CAP (which I myself have been guilty of telling).
Logged
Mike Toedebusch
Spaatz Award 1168 - 1 June 1993
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Senior Promotion Barriers
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 5.565 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me