Insubordination

[tsrup]

1.  Your C/TSgt needs to get his butt kicked.

Sounds like both of them do.  There is two sides to every story afterall..

2.  You don't need to be on "staff" to give orders.

True and not true.  Like most things in life there is a right way and a wrong way.  Our logistics officer would get an earful from me if they came by and ordered my cadets to clean the van or move boxes without talking to me first.  Especially if I was in the room when he did it.

3.  You are on staff the instant they gave you a job with a title.

I have no argument with that. 

4.  With the flight sergeant there you should have gone through him before you started giving orders....his people his program....it is a courtesey.

This is the right way.

Okay...you need to go to your C/CC or DCC ASAP and get this resolved.   The c/TSgt is undermining your authoity as a leader and you should not stand for it.

Wrong way again.  And a classic example of undermining the chain of command.  You have a problem with the c/Tsgt?  You talk to him/her first.  Then you go further up to the First Sgt.  etc...  till the problem is resolved.

[Short Field]

Okay...you need to go to your C/CC or DCC ASAP and get this resolved.   The c/TSgt is undermining your authoity as a leader and you should not stand for it.

Wrong way again.  And a classic example of undermining the chain of command.  You have a problem with the c/Tsgt?  You talk to him/her first.  Then you go further up to the First Sgt.  etc...  till the problem is resolved.

He needs to go to the C/CC or DCC ASAP.  He already talked to the C/TSgt.  He also didn't just ask for help, he "asked in an assertive tone".  I expect his leadership will quickly sort things out to the mutual education of both the C/TSgt and the C/SSgt. 

[tsrup]

Okay...you need to go to your C/CC or DCC ASAP and get this resolved.   The c/TSgt is undermining your authoity as a leader and you should not stand for it.

Wrong way again.  And a classic example of undermining the chain of command.  You have a problem with the c/Tsgt?  You talk to him/her first.  Then you go further up to the First Sgt.  etc...  till the problem is resolved.

He needs to go to the C/CC or DCC ASAP.  He already talked to the C/TSgt.  He also didn't just ask for help, he "asked in an assertive tone".  I expect his leadership will quickly sort things out to the mutual education of both the C/TSgt and the C/SSgt.

Absolutely not.

He should then take it up with his next step in his chain of command.  End of story.  If he/she goes directly to the DCC then it undermines the chain of command entirely.  The next step above the flight sgt. would be the First sgt, then Chief.  The problem should be taken care of at the lowest possible level.

[JC004]

Absolutely not.

He should then take it up with his next step in his chain of command.  End of story.  If he/she goes directly to the DCC then it undermines the chain of command entirely.  The next step above the flight sgt. would be the First sgt, then Chief.  The problem should be taken care of at the lowest possible level.

?!  A First Sergeant is properly outside the chain of command.  Chief?

[tsrup]

Absolutely not.

He should then take it up with his next step in his chain of command.  End of story.  If he/she goes directly to the DCC then it undermines the chain of command entirely.  The next step above the flight sgt. would be the First sgt, then Chief.  The problem should be taken care of at the lowest possible level.

?!  A First Sergeant is properly outside the chain of command.  Chief?

And so is Flight Sgt.  But the person you should be talking to WRT to NCO's would be the First Sgt., then the Chief (being the First Sgt's supervisor)

If these positions don't exist then go to the flight commander. 

The point is not to go over anyone's head.

[JC004]

The Flight Sgt IS in the chain of command.  Reference: CAPR 20-1.

The First Sgt is an adviser to the commander's office, a direct-report, the enlisted adviser.  The First Sgt belongs to the commander, not to a Chief. 

There is no Chief (assuming this is some sort of Command Chief Master Sgt) at the squadron level.  Even if so, they are a higher-level First Sergeant and also outside the chain of command.

[Pylon]

And so is Flight Sgt.  But the person you should be talking to WRT to NCO's would be the First Sgt., then the Chief (being the First Sgt's supervisor)

If these positions don't exist then go to the flight commander. 

The point is not to go over anyone's head.

That's not at all how the cadet chain of command works.    Cadet -> Element Leader -> Flight Sergeant -> Flight Commander -> Cadet Commander -> Deputy Commander for Cadets -> Squadron Commander.

The Cadet First Sergeant is the "enlisted" cadet advisor, a member of the commander's staff, and not in the chain of command. 

There is no "Chief" position in CAP.

And "if these positions don't exist..."?   Why would you have no element leaders or flight sergeant, but have a flight commander?   

Take a look at the recommended cadet org charts in CAPP 52-15: www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_015_21F7ACED34F45.pdf

[tsrup]

point taken but what I say still stands.  He should take it up his chain rather than going direct to the top.



*as for chief, that was an oversight on my part, been spending too much time planning our next encampment....

[lordmonar]

There are somethings which you go directly to the top for.

One of them is, as in this chase, a major lapse in the understanding that all leaders are supposed to support all other leaders.

Yes in theory you should resolve issues at the lowest levels.

Peer to peer and then up the chain of command.

As a Staff NCO the C/SSgt's chain  of command is up to the C/CC (or maybe a C/XO if they have one).  So by passing the flight commanders is okay IN THIS SITUATION.

YMMV.