Quality Versus Desire?

[Dragoon]

Lots of folks want to beef up the PD.  But my guess is we're heading for a big argument about what exactly we mean by that.  And I'm not talking about the subjects of the PD, but the approach to it.

If we add additional classes and hoops to jump through, we will definitely reduce the number of promotions.  Only those who truly want it will go through the hoops and sit through the classes.

But - it the goal to promote only those with the burning desire to get promoted?  Or to promote the highest quality individuals?

Because if you want high quality Lt Col's, you'll have to eliminate potential low-quality candidates.  Which normally doesn't sit well with members, especially those who don't make the cut.

For example, we have a TON of career majors in CAP.  Wonder why?

  Level 4 requires ACSC or Region Staff College.  ACSC requires not just dedication, but also some book smarts - after all it's got tests you can fail and papers to write. It's tough, and few do it.
 
  Region Staff College is at first glance the easier route - when's the last time you heard of someone failing RSC for academic or competency reasons?  If you show up and be nice to your neighbor, you're gonna pass.

So, how come all these majors don't just go to RSC?

Because they have to take a week off from work. 

It's possible that there are some outstanding leaders out there whose day jobs are pretty demanding (sharp, educated leaders tend not to work at Arby's) and it's a real pain to be away from work that long.

So, these hypothetical guys don't get promoted.  Not because they aren't high quality.  But because their desire to be a CAP Lt Col isn't as high as their desire to, say, become a VP at work and spend quality time with their family.  And yet, these guys can (and do) get selected for high speed CAP jobs because of their talent.  But they don't get promoted because while they have the desire to to the work, they don't have the desire to wear the grade.  And given a choice between taking a week for RSC and taking a week to, say,  support encampment, they choose the latter.

On the other hand, our system allows the unemployed 50 year old  wholives in his mom's basement to attend RSC (no problem getting time off) and get promoted.  This guy is a good guy, and is always there to lend a helping hand. Because CAP is the main thing in his life.  He's got time to kill.  But he couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. But he gets promoted.


Right now, our system promotes based on desire over quality.

So, if you beef up PD, what do you do? 

Do you just add more "show up and you pass" classes you must attend to make sure we weed out the undesiring?

Or do you add more tests and evaluations to make sure we weed out the low quality?


Or a mix of both.

Does everyone, regardless of ability, deserve to be a CAP Lt Col?

[DNall]

I know you don't want to drag off in a conversation about the specific option I'm presenting, but let me explain the portion that applies.

In the military, promotion in the Amn grades & in the company officer grades is fairly automatic based on TIG, hoop jumping, & not getting caught with the bosses daughter or anything like that. I have that fairly well preserved. There's nothing that says as a line Capt you have to be Sq CC material, but it shouldn't be from lack of training & development opportunity. Now the field  & NCO grades get a harder look. The way I have that running there are limited slots on the officer side folks are not allowed up unless they are ready for the responsibility. Same deal with NCOs, but no cap on their numbers.

I think that's what makes sense, which is to say a little of both in balance with a way to pull out talent early & develop it with focused energy, but still another place where the more average member can go to & make their contribution in a big way.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dragoon:

I had not yet addressed this, since  was working on the "One thing at a time" method, and wanted background on initial officer accession.

My thoughts (as I put on my flame-retardant clothing) on beefing up the PD are:

1.  Tougher initial standards for entry into CAP as an officer.  This would entail a formar, in-residence, OTS.  With us, as in the AF, most of our leading is done by junior officers, yet the current PD doesn't even require them to know how to march.

2.  Front-loading the training that is presently required before making captain.  AFIADL-13 and SLS should be initial entry requirements incorporated into OTS.

3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

4.  Develop resident specialty track courses.  These can be weekend seminars, but the idea of giving new people a book and a list of requirements and tell them to figure it out for themselves is poor leadership.  After OTS, a weekend resident class to reach the tech level should be required.  These can be conducted annually.

I'm going to need some help with RSC, since I never took it.  I got it waivered by attendance at Officer Advanced.  I haven't had the pleasure of ACSC or NSC yet.

But I consider taking a week off work and away from the Old Bird to be one of the benefits of membership!

[Chappie]

[quote author=JohnKachenmeister link=topic=1417.msg20172#msg20172 date=1169149

My thoughts (as I put on my flame-retardant clothing) on beefing up the PD are:


2.  Front-loading the training that is presently required before making captain.  AFIADL-13 and SLS should be initial entry requirements incorporated into OTS.
[/quote]

I really like the idea of AFIADL-13 being required on the front-end.  And it should apply to ALL senior members...including the Chaplains.   The biggest problem that I have had to deal with have been Chaplains who have no clue about the CAP/Military culture.  They may be fine pastors but are lousy chaplains when it comes to the area of Chain-of-Command, uniform wear, customs and courtesies....and my list could go on.  The AFIADL-13 certainly gives them an insight in the culture in which we operate.

[Dragoon]

Would someone be able to fail this OTS?  Or would everyone who chooses to attend pass?

[Dragoon]

I know you don't want to drag off in a conversation about the specific option I'm presenting, but let me explain the portion that applies.

In the military, promotion in the Amn grades & in the company officer grades is fairly automatic based on TIG, hoop jumping, & not getting caught with the bosses daughter or anything like that. I have that fairly well preserved. There's nothing that says as a line Capt you have to be Sq CC material, but it shouldn't be from lack of training & development opportunity. Now the field  & NCO grades get a harder look. The way I have that running there are limited slots on the officer side folks are not allowed up unless they are ready for the responsibility. Same deal with NCOs, but no cap on their numbers.

I think that's what makes sense, which is to say a little of both in balance with a way to pull out talent early & develop it with focused energy, but still another place where the more average member can go to & make their contribution in a big way.

So your basic concept is that anyone (meeting the entry standards) with the desire could make Captain, but some folks would not be allowed to progress futher due to lack of competence?

[DogCollar]

Chappie,
I'm probably one of those chaplains that you're referring too!  I don't have a military background, I don't have military customs and protocols memorized, I do the best I can with my uniforms (I'm sure it's not perfect...but, I think I've seen worse).
This is my reality, and my main concern with all of these threads.  (1) I only have so much time that I can "volunteer" to CAP.  I'm not going to be overly ambitious with my professional development.  (2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  (3) I have already had to go through a rigorous endorsement process from my denomination in order to "volunteer" my time as a chaplain, I have 20 years of Pastoral Ministry experience.  I could care less about what rank/grade I achieve, because it's not about me, but about the service I can offer.  (4) You can "beef up" all the requirements and training you want, but unless my employers give me another three weeks of vacation, my family kicks me out of the house, and someone decrees that there will be four more hours added to each day, then, I just don't have the time to front load, back fill, or even drive by!

That being said, I need to sign off and go over my Moral Leadership session preparations for tonight.

[A.Member]

There will never be a solution that will satisfy all people.  That must be accepted from the start.  Some people may leave, others may join.  And so the world turns.  Take the current direction as an example: As evidenced by the recent exodus, a number of people evidently aren't particularly compelled to stay with the organization for one reason or another (wouldn't it be nice if someone actually tried to quantify this a bit through some sort of post-mortem follow-up survey - "why did you leave"?).

That said, another component that I haven't seen mentioned in these discussions is "continuing education".  So, you finally reach Maj., Lt. Col., or whatever...then what?  Do, you wait to die?  Seems that way.  Instead, there should be some sort of ongoing requirement to keep members currently appraised of regulations, etc.  It's evident, even from comments on this board, that many people have been around a long time.   On the surface that may seem good but things have changed and often enough those people have not changed with them.  Maybe some sort of weekend "AFIADL 13"-type refresher every 2 years? 

And, as mentioned, put some teeth into the training.  I'm not necessarily talking anything over the top gung-ho (although difficulty should increase accordingly)  but certainly much more than the simple ability to fog a mirror.

[KRCopes]

Point of Order:  Level 4 requires RSC or USAF Squadron Officer School, not ACSC.  But the point of the post still remains true.

[Chappie]

Chappie,
I'm probably one of those chaplains that you're referring too!  I don't have a military background, I don't have military customs and protocols memorized, I do the best I can with my uniforms (I'm sure it's not perfect...but, I think I've seen worse).
This is my reality, and my main concern with all of these threads.  (1) I only have so much time that I can "volunteer" to CAP.  I'm not going to be overly ambitious with my professional development.  (2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  (3) I have already had to go through a rigorous endorsement process from my denomination in order to "volunteer" my time as a chaplain, I have 20 years of Pastoral Ministry experience.  I could care less about what rank/grade I achieve, because it's not about me, but about the service I can offer.  (4) You can "beef up" all the requirements and training you want, but unless my employers give me another three weeks of vacation, my family kicks me out of the house, and someone decrees that there will be four more hours added to each day, then, I just don't have the time to front load, back fill, or even drive by!

That being said, I need to sign off and go over my Moral Leadership session preparations for tonight.

Sorry for the use of the word "lousy"....it was a reflection of those fine pastors who cannot for the previously stated reasons make a good connection with the squadrons/squadron commanders which they serve.   It is disheartening to see the lack of chaplains within CAP (would love to see every squadron have a Chaplain) ... and you are 100% correct...it is an ordeal to get the ecclesiastical appointment and jump through the hoops for an appointment...but it is a greater disappointment when squadron commanders want to get rid of their chaplains because the chaplain isn't getting with the program. 

That is where the AFIADL-13 is...IMHO...a necessity for all senior members including the chaplain. 

Like you, I brought 20+ years of pastoral ministry (no military experience but about 15 years of volunteer LE chaplaincy) experience with me.  But CAP is not structured like the local churches or the Police/Sheriff Departments that I served.   It took me awhile but the training requirements for all Levels of Professional Development were met.  It was not easy --- the AFIADL is a 4 book course which one can take a home...you have up to a year to go through the material and take the 100 question exam at the local squadron (just study the end of the section/chapter questions and you will breeze through it).  Complete the open-book 221 questions and submit the answers to your Wing Chaplain....and you have met the requirements for Level 2.  Levels 3 and 4 will come in time as you attend the various conferences/hold staff positions/CSRSC.   I know and can attest that it is a pain and a sacrifice....but I feel better equipped for the various opportunities that have afforded me to serve within Civil Air Patrol.  Prioritizing my time and picking and choosing when I could attend certain activities/events all were a factor.   Looking back -- I never thought that those baby-steps would culminate in the GRW.

None of us serve simply for the "bling" or the rank/grade ... but with the training came opportunities to serve that when I finally received a CAP Chaplain appointment (took about 6 months from the time that I began the process) never thought would be possible. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Would someone be able to fail this OTS?  Or would everyone who chooses to attend pass?

If I had full authority and responsibility, yes.  But I don't see anythingin AFIADL-13, Drill and Ceremonies, or SLS that a person bright enough to feed themselves would have difficulty with.

In all probability, the "Failures" will voluntarily withdraw themselves, and return to their parents basement to save the world from alien invaders using their X-box.

[flyguy06]

Dragoon:


3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

[arajca]

DNall and I have had this discussion a couple times (here and on Civil Air Portal).

A good example of how it should be done is in the Admin specialty track. For the Tech rating, the senior is required to be familiar with the Fin/Admin SC requirements and duties, but is not required to be qualified as such.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dragoon:


3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

What would you say to an applicant for a position as a manager trainee at Pizza Hut who told you in the interview that he wasn't interested in making pizzas?

We have 3 missions.  Officers, if their rank is to have any meaning at all, have to be generalists and ready to step into any of the three missions to the extent their training will allow.

I was an MP officer.  Could I tell the general I wasn't interested in engineer tasks?  No, because officers sometimes find themselves in charge of units outside their specialty.

If somebody came to me and wanted to be in finance, but didn't want to be qualified to do finance on missions, what good are they to me?  I'm still gonna need another finance officer to handle the missions, so why have the duplication?

[A.Member]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

[mikeylikey]

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

I wouldn't say a member should be "interested" in the 3 missions, but they should know of them, and have a basic understanding of them, and be ready to become involved in one or all of them if necessary and desired.

[RiverAux]

I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of Kach's suggestions. 

However, I would add that the specialty track levels should be somewhat linked to the level of the unit in which they were performed.  If everyone had groups it would be easy to go Tech=Squadron level, Senior=Group, Master=Wing, so lets just reserve the Master rating for those performing that specialty work at the Wing level for the specified length of time.  If pressed, in order to allow for the large Wings where there actually would be too many people to be able to run them through a Wing job, I could go for restricting Master to just Group or Wing level service. 

[flyguy06]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

[Chappie]

(2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  

Bill,

There is present reality and there is CAP reality    Wing Chaplains are limited to a 6 year term.  That means a Wing Chaplain will often serve at least 2 Wing Commanders.  It can be one full term of a Wing CC and 1/2 with the other...or 1/2 term with one and 1/2 term with another.  Since Wing Commanders can select their own Wing Chaplain, an incumbant Wing Chaplain can be relieved from duty without prejudice.

In the VAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 12 chaplains serving:
1st Lt (3) - each at Level 1; Capt (3) - each at Level 1; Maj (3) - each at Level 1; Lt Col (3) - 1 at Level 1, 1 at Level 2, 1 at Level 4.   In other words 10 out 12 chaplains have not pursued their Professional Development beyond Level 1.

In the CAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 28 chaplains: 1st Lt (2) - each at Level 1; Capt (11) - 10 at Level 1, 1 at Level 3; Maj (7) - 4 at Level 4, 1 at Level 3, 2 at Level 4; Lt Col ( 8 ) - 4 at Level 4, 2 at Level 3, 2 at Level 5).

The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.

There is a general "rule of thumb" that Wing Chaplains should attain at least Level 4 and those serving on the Chaplain Service Advisory Council (CSAC: Chief, Dep. Chief, Secretary - National Chaplain Service Staff and the 8 Region Chaplains) should have attained Level 5.

The questions raised in light of the high percentage of the CAP Chaplain Service not pursuing their professional development should be:
--- where are going find Chaplains to serve in senior levels of leadership?
--- do we have Chaplains prepared to take on senior levels of leadership?
--- if we do not have adequate numbers of Chaplains trained to assume these responsibilities, what is the future of the CAP Chaplain Service?

Let me tell you that no Chaplain who has a sincere desire to serve as a CAP Chaplain, came in with the aspirations of one day becoming a Wing or Region Chaplain or on the National CAP Chaplain Service Staff.  If so, then his/her motives are wrong.  However, it is not wrong for a Chaplain to desire to pursue their professional development that if and when an opportunity to serve in one of those capacities, they would be prepared to take on those responsibilities.  

It is not beyond the realm of possibility -- there is a pattern that is repeated time after time.  Your current squadron commander can one day become a Wing or Region Commander or even a National Commander.  If you have served faithfully and with distinction....and that commander has trust in you and your abilities, who do you think will get tapped on the shoulder to serve on the Commander's staff?  A few years ago, the National Chief of the CAP Chaplain service was a chaplain who began his career like you and I -- a squadron chaplain.  As his squadron commander was promoted to higher levels of responsibility (Group/Wing/Region and yes, National), he was asked to serve at that Level.  Not saying that scenario is right or wrong --- but it happens.   But as the Chaplain went on to the next level -- he had either met or pursued the training required to perform at that Level.  

Just food for thought.

[ZigZag911]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Put out?? Certainly not!

Limited in how high up the food chain you could go (in terms both of rank and responsibility)....yeah, I'm afraid so....and you might be satisfied with that, i don't know.

I don't envision 'single interest' members going beyond captain at squadron staff officer level

[flyguy06]

Really, well then you dont know the people in my Squadronthen. We have Lt Cols and Maj's that are just interested inhelping kids. Our Dep for Senor is a Lt Col. Just completed NSC and his only interest is flying orientation flights and getting our cadet program backontrack. I cant blame hiim for not wantig to tromp around the woods. He's 70 somethingyears old. He did his time inthe USAF flying C-130's inthe 60's . He just wants to give backto his community like the rest of us.

[DogCollar]

(2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  

Bill,

There is present reality and there is CAP reality    Wing Chaplains are limited to a 6 year term.  That means a Wing Chaplain will often serve at least 2 Wing Commanders.  It can be one full term of a Wing CC and 1/2 with the other...or 1/2 term with one and 1/2 term with another.  Since Wing Commanders can select their own Wing Chaplain, an incumbant Wing Chaplain can be relieved from duty without prejudice.

In the VAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 12 chaplains serving:
1st Lt (3) - each at Level 1; Capt (3) - each at Level 1; Maj (3) - each at Level 1; Lt Col (3) - 1 at Level 1, 1 at Level 2, 1 at Level 4.   In other words 10 out 12 chaplains have not pursued their Professional Development beyond Level 1.

In the CAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 28 chaplains: 1st Lt (2) - each at Level 1; Capt (11) - 10 at Level 1, 1 at Level 3; Maj (7) - 4 at Level 4, 1 at Level 3, 2 at Level 4; Lt Col ( 8 ) - 4 at Level 4, 2 at Level 3, 2 at Level 5).

The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.

There is a general "rule of thumb" that Wing Chaplains should attain at least Level 4 and those serving on the Chaplain Service Advisory Council (CSAC: Chief, Dep. Chief, Secretary - National Chaplain Service Staff and the 8 Region Chaplains) should have attained Level 5.

The questions raised in light of the high percentage of the CAP Chaplain Service not pursuing their professional development should be:
--- where are going find Chaplains to serve in senior levels of leadership?
--- do we have Chaplains prepared to take on senior levels of leadership?
--- if we do not have adequate numbers of Chaplains trained to assume these responsibilities, what is the future of the CAP Chaplain Service?

Let me tell you that no Chaplain who has a sincere desire to serve as a CAP Chaplain, came in with the aspirations of one day becoming a Wing or Region Chaplain or on the National CAP Chaplain Service Staff.  If so, then his/her motives are wrong.  However, it is not wrong for a Chaplain to desire to pursue their professional development that if and when an opportunity to serve in one of those capacities, they would be prepared to take on those responsibilities.  

It is not beyond the realm of possibility -- there is a pattern that is repeated time after time.  Your current squadron commander can one day become a Wing or Region Commander or even a National Commander.  If you have served faithfully and with distinction....and that commander has trust in you and your abilities, who do you think will get tapped on the shoulder to serve on the Commander's staff?  A few years ago, the National Chief of the CAP Chaplain service was a chaplain who began his career like you and I -- a squadron chaplain.  As his squadron commander was promoted to higher levels of responsibility (Group/Wing/Region and yes, National), he was asked to serve at that Level.  Not saying that scenario is right or wrong --- but it happens.   But as the Chaplain went on to the next level -- he had either met or pursued the training required to perform at that Level.  

Just food for thought.

Believe me, I understand the dilemma of trying to find upper echelon leadership!  It is a problem in almost every institution, not just CAP.  Those who aspire to leadership in my denomination are usually the ones who shouldn't be there, and thankfully aren't usually the ones who wind up in those positions.  A good healthy dose of reluctance is often a good sign for leaders!

Now, that being said, I have not only an abundance of reluctance, but I also face a time crunch that is real and getting worse.  My calling is as a hospital chaplain, which means that I am on-call every week night (I do have weekends off--thanks to a staff of on-call for emergencies only clergy).  I have gotten paged out of CAP meetings to care for a crisis at the hospital.  On top of that I am working on my doctor of ministry degree, I am the state education chair for the Association of Professional Chaplains, on the leadership council for the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, I am involved in my local congregation teaching and working on various committees, I work within my denomination on various committees.  At home, I have a 14 year old son in all his hormonal glory that requires a lot of attention, and an 81 year old father with various sundry health issues, who lives with us.  My wife is also heavily involved in not only her work, but several church oriented things as well...we've been married for 24 years and occasionally like to see each other.

I am involved with CAP, because I enjoy it, I believe in it's missions, and because volunteering my skills and what time I can is the right thing to do.  I have done Level II chaplain PD.  I have also done some of the ES courses in trying to achieve a rating to be a mission chaplain.  However, if it takes me 5 years to get it...it takes me five years!

I will say again, I could care less what rank or grade I have...I will try not to dishonor those who have achieved military rank by serving in the Armed Forces by pretending to be something I am not...I will continue to do my best not to look sloppy in my uniform...btw, I meet AF weight and grooming standards to wear the AF style uniforms. 

So, the question remains...quality or desire?  Maybe another way of putting it is that life reality has a way of refocusing one away from the ambitious to what is possible.

[capchiro]

I have to back flyguy06 on this one.  We are a volunteer organization.  We ask people to participate, we have no authority to "tell" them to do anything.  We need to quit comparing ourselves to the military.  A military officer may be trained in one area such as MP and be asked to do something else, such as engineering.  Of course, the military officer is being paid to do what he is told and is under a different directive from Congress than we are.  They also get a lot more benefits than our members do.  Now, we have three missions.  No where do the requirements say that a person has to do more than any one of them.  A good aerospace education officer that is not interested in ES is still a great asset to CAP.  Maybe even better than a hot shot ES guy that tromps around the woods playing Rambo twice a year.  The ES officer is teaching and shaping cadets at least once a month and working on numerous projects in and out of the squadron constantly.  Does he still have time to obtain and maintain his ground team qualifications?  Maybe?  Maybe not.  What is the benefit to him?  Give up more time away from his real family?  Spend more family money to procure 24-72 hour packs?  Let's quit comparing CAP to the real military and let's try to remember that there are 3 distinct and different and very important missions in CAP and certain people enjoy certain activities and others don't, yet we all fill very equally important positions and let's quit trying to redefine this program as a mini military marine NCO school of special ops.  When I was younger I enjoyed ES, as I have gotten older and can no longer tromp the woods, I enjoy the cadets and working with them.  Thank God for all of the opportunities to continue to serve.  JMHO.

[Dragoon]

I agree with a lot of your points.

The reason we keep comparing ourselves to the military is because well, we kinda LOOK like the military.

If we didn't use military grade insignia, a lot of these comparisons would go away.

Specifically, though, what John K is trying to do is create a core of high level leaders - guys who would run CAP.  And it does make sense, regardless of what grade system is used, to ensure those leaders have a fair amount of knowledge and ability in CAP's missions.  A lot more than the powerpoint level.

And yeah, that means some folks won't ever get to that level.


But here's the rub


I think the average CAP member has no problem being told that he is unsuited for staff or command positions above squadron.

But that same guy is very upset to be told he is unsuited for promotion through the ranks.

How to get past this?

[capchiro]

I agree with your analysis and I don't see a problem with it.  The way the system is now, a very good dedicated aerospace education officer that has never done ES can still make Lt. Col.  I don't see  a problem with that.  As far as command, that is a little trickier.  As a composite squadron commander, I need to attempt to maintain both a good cadet program and good senior program.   This requires some experience in both, or at least the intelligence to be able to read and understand the program Reg's and have enough sense to surround one's self with good people.  I do not see any need to tie promotions into command or vice versa.  Fortunately, I "worked" my way through the ranks and was able to acquire a lot of great experience over the years.  I do not see a problem with professionals starting off at a higher grade as they bring "more" to the table.  I would not have wanted to trade positions with the Group Chaplain when he went to two cadet's homes in Florida to tell their parents that there had been an accident during their orientation flight and they wouldn't be coming home anymore.  I also wouldn't want to be the squadron or wing legal officer and get the call at home on Saturday from a squadron commander about what should he do about two cadets that may have been doing something inappropriate and should the local police be involved.  Most of these professional areas require a certain amount of risk to the professionals based upon their personal interpretation of areas outside our Reg's.  An EMT/medial officer on a training misson is asked to treat a cadet that is feeling overheated.  It's his call whether the cadet is in heat exhaustion or heat stroke.  Our Reg's don't help with that and on top of it, our Reg's may direct him to do as little as possible.  So, in the overall I have no problem with promoting personnel based upon their training track and I don't think command experience should required.  What should be required is that Group and Wing Commanders should look at the experience one brings to the plate when applying for a command position.  If they would do their jobs, we wouldn't have to worry about inexperienced 1Lt. Upjohn being a commander of a squadron.  We don't need to worry about the promotion program as much as we do the way command positions are handed out.   I hope I haven't digressed too much.

[Dragoon]

I'd argue that it's not about how command positions are "handed out."

It's more that we can't get the best candidates into those jobs in the first place.

Because you can get all the rewards of the program, including rank, WITHOUT doing the tough jobs. 

So we end up giving inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn the job because no one more capable wants it.

[capchiro]

And I might argue that if someone would take the "tough" jobs for the rank, they may be in it for the "bling" and not all of the "right reasons".  Let's face it, considering the lack of pay, benefits and retirement, why would anyone want to do anything in CAP?  I contend that it is for a desire of fellowship of people with like interests, a smattering of patriotism, a touch of pride, a sense of belonging, a desire to give back to the greatest country in the world, and a small hope to have mattered when it is all said and done.  As a commander, I have learned to look for the quality of an individual instead of the rank of an individual when the time comes to get the job done.  Believe it or not, there are some lazy, no account, Lt. Col's. in the real Air Force/Military also.  OTS/OCS/ROTC does not wean out all of the loser's, every class has a bottom quarter and every promotion list has a bottom quarter also, so not all officer's are the cream of the crop, but there are some good ones once in a while (Gen. Schwartzkopf) and we also get some good ones in CAP.  One thing I have noticed is that not all prior service military officers are good CAP officers.   I think some may not know the CAP program, but think that since they are prior service, CAP is secondary to them.  While similar in many ways, they still need to learn CAP Reg's and conduct themselves and the program accordingly.

[Dragoon]

And I might argue that if someone would take the "tough" jobs for the rank, they may be in it for the "bling" and not all of the "right reasons".  Let's face it, considering the lack of pay, benefits and retirement, why would anyone want to do anything in CAP?  I contend that it is for a desire of fellowship of people with like interests, a smattering of patriotism, a touch of pride, a sense of belonging, a desire to give back to the greatest country in the world, and a small hope to have mattered when it is all said and done. 

But that's how we got inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn as a commander in the first place - he was the only guy who wanted the job (probably for the reasons you state above).  But still, it's not like we turned down 10 worthier candidates to give it to him.

If we don't somehow make the job more attractive to experienced CAP Officer Smith, he will continue to do what he does right now - not take it, and leave it to Upjohn.  Which leaves us right where we are today.

[davedove]

I'd argue that it's not about how command positions are "handed out."

It's more that we can't get the best candidates into those jobs in the first place.

Because you can get all the rewards of the program, including rank, WITHOUT doing the tough jobs. 

So we end up giving inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn the job because no one more capable wants it.

I think you would still have the problem of filling the jobs.  If promotions were restricted to only those who have filled the "tough" jobs, you would get some people filling the jobs just so they can get the rank, not necessarily the best people, just the ones wanting more bling.

It's compounded by the fact that there are no benefits from getting a higher grade, like pay increases.  Since everyone is an unpaid volunteer, he will want to work where it is most convenient and where he feels he can contribute the most.  For most people, that means working at the squadron level, where all the real tasks take place, not the higher levels, which are really administrative/coordination type slots.

The way to get quality people taking command positions is to require higher standards for the job.  Of course, this still doesn't solve how to entice people to take those jobs.  Most people, being volunteers, would rather contribute at the squadron a few miles away than to work at wing which is much farther.  How do you get them to go to wing?  They won't get paid any more.  The squadron member can say they go out on search missions or help train cadets.  The wing member can say they process paperwork, go over reports, and help establish policy.  Which one sounds more rewarding?

[Dragoon]

I think you would still have the problem of filling the jobs.  If promotions were restricted to only those who have filled the "tough" jobs, you would get some people filling the jobs just so they can get the rank, not necessarily the best people, just the ones wanting more bling.

Well, not neccesarily.  You'd certainly have bling hunters WANTING the jobs, but you still get to pick the best one.  And maybe you'd be choosing from among 10 eager candidates who want a promotion, instead of the one guy who kinda sucks, but at least he's willing to do it.

It's kind of like saying we should pay generals the same as privates, or Fire Chiefs the same as firemen, because you should want the job out of a sense of duty, not for more pay. 

But that ain't how the world works.  If a job is tough, and requires talent, you have to provide incentives.  Rank would be one possible incentive.  Because in CAP,  "bling" is one way we "pay" our people.

Unless we can fix this problem and get more quality people to volunteer for tough jobs like Wing Director of Logistics, we will be stuck with mediocre support from our higher echelons.

The way to get quality people taking command positions is to require higher standards for the job.  Of course, this still doesn't solve how to entice people to take those jobs.  Most people, being volunteers, would rather contribute at the squadron a few miles away than to work at wing which is much farther.  How do you get them to go to wing?  They won't get paid any more.  The squadron member can say they go out on search missions or help train cadets.  The wing member can say they process paperwork, go over reports, and help establish policy.  Which one sounds more rewarding?

Exactly - you've hit on the problem.  How can we reward quality folks for doing the tough jobs no one wants to do, or the jobs that require particular talents, when there are so many other fun jobs that you can do?

I have no problem getting squadron level cadet programs officers.  I have BIG troubles getting a good Wing level finance officer.  We're gonna have to offer something with that job if we want a good guy to take it.....

[A.Member]

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Put out?? Certainly not!

Limited in how high up the food chain you could go (in terms both of rank and responsibility)....yeah, I'm afraid so....and you might be satisfied with that, i don't know.

I don't envision 'single interest' members going beyond captain at squadron staff officer level

That's exactly right.  

Someone's been a member since they were a cadet at age 15, so?  What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?  

I have no real interest in model rocketry but I teach it as enthusiastically as possible anyway.  Why?  Because it's not about me or what I want.  It's about serving (service before self).  In this case, serving the cadets needs.  

The point is, there are a lot of roles to fill.  A member may not have a particular interest in doing something but they most definitely should be willing to assist with any of the 3 missions as needed.   If not, progression should be limited (ex., I would not expect this person to ever command and rank limited to company grades).  And if a squadron is large enough to allow members to focus on one particular mission, then great, but it should not be done to the exclusion of the other missions. 

The fact that we are volunteers is rather irrelevant.  No one is forced to join.  We're all members as a result of our own volition.  That doesn't mean the organization doesn't have standards/expectations for it's membership.   It's not a "military" v. "civilian" thing either.  It's an organizational thing and the expectation should be clearly stated up front.  We should not simply be "Come And Pay", we should be "Come And Participate".

[Al Sayre]

Why is it when someone says ES, everyone immediately jumps to the Ground Team stuff.  You guys should know that ES is not limited to flying, tromping around in the woods, and 2:00 a.m. ELT Hunts. 

Most Wings have a shortage of people who are Mission Base Staff qualified.  Right now, I am trying to get all of my Squadron's Officers to become at least Mission Staff Assistants, so they can help out at the Mission Base. 

There are also: Liason Officer, Information Officer, Mission Chaplain, Mission Radio Operator, Mission Safety Officer, Communication Unit Leader, Finance & Admin Section Chief and Logistics Section Chiefs positions. They are all a part of ES.  These are all important ES jobs that have to be done and you can qualify for them and never leave the comfort of the air conditioning. 

[Dragoon]

That's a very good point.  The folks who don't do ES at all may not understand all the things you can do.

Whenever we have a big mission, there are always a lot of folks who want to help, but never got the basic qualifications that would let them help.

And yeah, on long missions especially, MSAs help a lot.  Without ever leaving mission base.

[Al Sayre]

Send them to the FEMA website (http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/crslist.asp) and get ICS 100 & 200 done online.  They only take 2-3 hours each, and then they can start training for all of those positions.

There's also Flight Line Marshallers and Supervisors, who while outside, also stay at mission base.

[DogCollar]

It seems to me that CAP is going to have to come to terms with the same reality that every other volunteer organization needs to understand.  Namely, that those with the time to devote to the more "time consuming" tasks are going to be retired, or not working full-time!  Look at every other volunteer organization in the community and you will see that those who put in the most time and doing the time intensive projects are usually 65 or older (I know this personally as I am also the Director of Volunteer Services for my hospital).

If you work full-time (and most full-time employees are working way more than 40 hours a week!!!!), have a family, and are moderately involved in other activities, then two to three hours a week devoted to CAP is all that can and should be expected!  Anything more than that, including professional development training etc..., is gravy and should be appreciated and respected!  Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

As to the FEMA training...CAP needs to change this reqirement...because ICS 100 and 200 are likely to be phased out.  ICS 700 (which I have done) is the one that will be compliant with the NIMS regulations. 

[A.Member]

Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

Or, on the flip side, those that ONLY come to meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to understand that their progession in the organization may be limited.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

[capchiro]

Somehow we have drifted from the topic, but I want to add my two cents to this latest development, regarding mission qualifications.  With my years of experience, I have been mission qualified many times in many roles from radio operator, to ground team leader, to mission observer with the radiological monitoring patch (with instructor credentials).  I am now current with MSA.  Becoming qualified in any ES is very time consuming and frustrating.  Sometimes not all tasks are offered to become fully certified when needed.  The second problem is staying qualified.  With the relatively few ES calls our Wing gets, and the relative few ES people actually needed, along with real life happening, it is relatively hard to work two missions every two years as needed.  Truthfully, unless that is your forte, I wouldn't recommend it.  There appears to be a small core of individuals that work almost all ES missions and they are not always open to "newbies".   That is not a slam, it is reality.  Most individuals don't have enough time to do a "good" job on their main role in CAP (whatever that may be) to add another job to their list.  Another thing, ES is not something that is conducive to part-time warriors.  It's hard to be good at more than one thing, so if ES floats your boat go for it.  If aerospace is where it's at, go for it.  We have room and work for all.

[Al Sayre]

You are making my point.  There are some ES qualifications that are easy to do and require minimal training, but can have a big impact.  I understand that many people don't have the time to "get involved" with ES, but if they get the Mission Staff Assistant qual, then when a big event happens and they "want to help" and have the time, they won't be turned away at the door becuse they aren't qualified and no one has time to sit down and do their qualifications with them right then. 

MSA's can be invaluable even if they can only help out for an hour or two.  Giving the board keepers a break to go to lunch, making copies and sorting paperwork, answering the telephones, preparing document packages for briefings, running messages around Mission Base, all of these things eat up the time of the people who are tasked with running the mission, and anyone who can help make those jobs easier is welcome.

[ZigZag911]

  What should be required is that Group and Wing Commanders should look at the experience one brings to the plate when applying for a command position.  If they would do their jobs, we wouldn't have to worry about inexperienced 1Lt. Upjohn being a commander of a squadron.  We don't need to worry about the promotion program as much as we do the way command positions are handed out.   I hope I haven't digressed too much.

This is indeed a problem.....one root cause is that individuals with little or no experience themselves are being handed groups and even wings to command by "buddies" further up the food chain.....which may make them feel good, but is a tremendous disservice to CAP.

[Dragoon]

Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

Or, on the flip side, those that ONLY come to meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to understand that their progession in the organization may be limited.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

So true.  We wouldn't even be having this discussion if rank wasn't involved.

I decide to become president of the local chapter of my organization for year.  So I get to call myself president.

Next year, I'm busy with work and family, so I just become a member.  I don't call myself president anymore.  Perhaps for the big dinner I wear my "ex president" nametag or something.

Next year, I decide to accept an appointment as a Regional Director.  So  now I have THAT title for a while.  And then, like all titles, I give it back.

No one argues.

No one says "every member deserves to be Chapter President".  Because truthfully, most don't WANT to be.  They just want to work at the local level.

The problem, it seems, is grade.  Everyone wants it.  Everyone thinks everyone deserves it.  Which, of course, makes it meaningless.

 If it was tied to position (and temporary), then only the guys who want to be in charge would want it .  Everyone else would be happy to avoid it and just be contributing members at the local level.

[ZigZag911]

Because it's not about me or what I want.  It's about serving (service before self). 

Thank you, it needs to be stated often.

Maybe the next piece of 'bling' CAP develops should be a 'morale patch' with that particular core value embroidered on it!

[DogCollar]

Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

Or, on the flip side, those that ONLY come to meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to understand that their progession in the organization may be limited.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

I agree there is nothing wrong with that.  Promotion for ANYTHING inside or outside CAP should be because of outstanding service to the organization.  Again, I am not in this organization for grade or promotion...I couldn't care less.  And, frankly I haven't heard any senior member of my squadron complain about the promotion standards...not one!

What I do have a problem with is the idea that I think is inherent in some of these posts that if you don't live and breath CAP 24/7 and if you don't want to aspire to "higher" positions, then somehow the whole senior membership is lessened.

I think what CAP needs to be communicating is an appreciation for anyone and everyone who is willing to volunteer ANY amount of time in service to their nation.  A simple thank you is worth it's weight in gold.

[ZigZag911]

Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!! 

The question is not giving a hard time to those whose participation is at the basic level, but rather recognizing that these folks don't have the time to take a lot of the training.....so their roles will mainly be in (necessary) support functions....which is fine....but this does not describe the commanders, advanced instructors, policy makers, or field grade officers.

By the way, some of those filling these roles also work 40 plus hours, have family and community obligations, and so forth....it's a choice, admittedly....but, on the other hand, those NOT able or willing (and the two are different issues) to devote time to training and participation really need to recognize that a more limited role also means a more limited voice in decision making.

[DogCollar]

By the way, some of those filling these roles also work 40 plus hours, have family and community obligations, and so forth....it's a choice, admittedly....but, on the other hand, those NOT able or willing (and the two are different issues) to devote time to training and participation really need to recognize that a more limited role also means a more limited voice in decision making.
[/quote]

I feel like we are all in agreement here.  I am NOT suggesting that those of us who can only volunteer 2 to 3 hours a week should become commanders, decision makers, get promoted, anointed, or appointed!  I have not seen a post yet that argues that those who are very limited in their involvement SHOULD be promoted to higher leadership!  My reaction is to the feeling that I have encountered that a 2 to 3 hour a week volunteer is not needed or welcome in the organization.

[capchiro]

Please Dear God, give me 20-25 members that will volunteer 2-3 hours a week and I will give you a squadron that functions.

[ZigZag911]

I feel like we are all in agreement here.  I am NOT suggesting that those of us who can only volunteer 2 to 3 hours a week should become commanders, decision makers, get promoted, anointed, or appointed!  I have not seen a post yet that argues that those who are very limited in their involvement SHOULD be promoted to higher leadership!  My reaction is to the feeling that I have encountered that a 2 to 3 hour a week volunteer is not needed or welcome in the organization.

I think one source of the dispute has been misunderstanding.

Some of us who are particularly involved in ES have said we'd like all seniors to get a minimal ES qualification...such as mission staff assistant...even if they don't maintain currency.

The thinking is that in a catatrophic situation (another 9/11 or Katrina):

1) pretty much everyone will want to help in whatever way they can

2) seniors with a fundamental qualification, even if it is out of currency (which can be waived or re-certified) would be of great service at mission bases. staging areas, and so forth.

I don't think anyone has said everyone needs to be fully active in all 3 missions, but rather that everyone ought to have some basic familiarity with all 3 missions, and be willing to pitch in as needed according to their ability and availability.

I have always been among the first to say family and job come before CAP!

[lordmonar]

I agree with a lot of your points.

The reason we keep comparing ourselves to the military is because well, we kinda LOOK like the military.

If we didn't use military grade insignia, a lot of these comparisons would go away.

Specifically, though, what John K is trying to do is create a core of high level leaders - guys who would run CAP.  And it does make sense, regardless of what grade system is used, to ensure those leaders have a fair amount of knowledge and ability in CAP's missions.  A lot more than the powerpoint level.

And yeah, that means some folks won't ever get to that level.

Here is an intresting thing though....even on active duty....your leaders don't know and have no reason to know what everyone is doing below them.

You Fighter Wing Commander know zip about what the comm squadron is doing...that is why he has a  support group commander and a comm squadron commander.

Being able to lead a large organisation is all about deligation not personal knowledge.

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

[A.Member]

...we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And no one here has proposed that everyone be in expert in every area.

[capchiro]

ZigZag, I think that as a commander, I need to utilize my resources to their best usage.  That said, I hate to spend time insisting on training for situations that may or may not happen in a reasonable time frame.  The two events you mentioned were catastrophic and I would gladly help if possible, however, they were not usual and you have to weigh the training versus the benefit.  Again, it is my understanding that only a relatively few people went to Katrina from Georgia Wing and only for a short time frame.  Perhaps our missions are too widely spread.  I can see a need for a full time ES service for such efforts.  I can also see a full time Cadet program to fulfill those efforts.  Perhaps we need to redefine our squadrons, something along the line of ES squadrons and cadet squadrons and maybe even aerospace squadrons (although that may be redundant) in order to do aproper job of all we are tasked with?  

[ZigZag911]

ZigZag, I think that as a commander, I need to utilize my resources to their best usage.  That said, I hate to spend time insisting on training for situations that may or may not happen in a reasonable time frame.  The two events you mentioned were catastrophic and I would gladly help if possible, however, they were not usual and you have to weigh the training versus the benefit.  Again, it is my understanding that only a relatively few people went to Katrina from Georgia Wing and only for a short time frame.  Perhaps our missions are too widely spread.  I can see a need for a full time ES service for such efforts.  I can also see a full time Cadet program to fulfill those efforts.  Perhaps we need to redefine our squadrons, something along the line of ES squadrons and cadet squadrons and maybe even aerospace squadrons (although that may be redundant) in order to do aproper job of all we are tasked with?   

I understand your position, but still, when disaster strikes it's too late to start preparing....unfortunately the world we live in means that a worst case scenario is not  beyond the borders of possibility.

[jayleswo]

One thought... The "I'm just a volunteer" thing.  That mindset tends to lead to low expectations and mediocrity.

If a member agrees to a duty assignment, job, task or project then they should do it with the same level of attention, skill and commitment as they would anything else of importance. What kills me is people who take a job and then never really do it. When asked about it, the response is "Well, I'm just a volunteer". So, someone else (usually the Commander) has to do the job.

Is that really the kind of program people are interested in being part of? Is that the kind of organization that gains respect from our customers and other agencies we work with? On the face of it, we have some important missions as an organization to fulfill. Is that part of our retention problem? The people that join with high expectations leave because they are not fulfilled? The people that stay are those who are content with mediocrity. And a small core group of people are left with running the unit, then burning out?

I'm all for high standards and expectations, volunteer or not.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[Dragoon]

I agree it's not a great mindset. But.  When the volunteer doesn't put his heart and soul into it, what do you do?

Mediocrity is not currently ground for dismissal.  So, you end up putting that person off in the corner where they can do no harm, and doing the hard job yourself.  We've all been there.  Sigh....

I think we need to rework our rewards policies (including grade) to focus on the folks actually doing the work.  No more bennies for the slackers.  And more bennies for the folks in the tougher jobs!

[DogCollar]

One thought... The "I'm just a volunteer" thing.  That mindset tends to lead to low expectations and mediocrity.

If a member agrees to a duty assignment, job, task or project then they should do it with the same level of attention, skill and commitment as they would anything else of importance. What kills me is people who take a job and then never really do it. When asked about it, the response is "Well, I'm just a volunteer". So, someone else (usually the Commander) has to do the job.

Is that really the kind of program people are interested in being part of? Is that the kind of organization that gains respect from our customers and other agencies we work with? On the face of it, we have some important missions as an organization to fulfill. Is that part of our retention problem? The people that join with high expectations leave because they are not fulfilled? The people that stay are those who are content with mediocrity. And a small core group of people are left with running the unit, then burning out?

I'm all for high standards and expectations, volunteer or not.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151

Col. I respect your desire for high standards and expectations.  I personally am willing to say that CAP will get the very best I've got...2 to 3 hours a week!  I don't expect a promotion, nor will I get bent out of shape if I am not included in the decision making.  If my 2 to 3 hours a week are not sufficient, then I would hope that my unit commander and/or my wing chaplain would take me aside and say we really don't need what you have to offer us.  That's fine.  I'd have a lot of respect for that commander and/or chaplain.  I enjoy my work with my small squadron of cadets and seniors, and so far, they seem to appreciate my being there every week, leading Moral Leadership, encouraging, listening and trying to increase morale.  When I have the time (which isn't often) I work on doing what I need to do to be qualified as a mission chaplain.

I don't desire to climb CAP's corporate/military ladder.  I have no need to wear higher rank insignia...heck, I'll give back my Captain bars if bothers enough people.  Yet, with the little time I have to offer, I will do the very best I can in service to others.  If this makes me a "mediocre slacker"...so be it.

[capchiro]

Bill, I will gladly take you and as many like you as I can get.  You are the backbone and not the jawbone of this fine organization.  Some people don't realize that with the exception of the recent unpleasantness in Iraq, a lot of CAP 2-3 hours per week and an occasional weekend people have matched if not exceeded the national guard/reserve component military and all of this without pay or benefits.  Keep up the good work and if you feel abused, come join my squadron, I would be proud to have you.

[Chappie]

By the way, some of those filling these roles also work 40 plus hours, have family and community obligations, and so forth....it's a choice, admittedly....but, on the other hand, those NOT able or willing (and the two are different issues) to devote time to training and participation really need to recognize that a more limited role also means a more limited voice in decision making.

I feel like we are all in agreement here.  I am NOT suggesting that those of us who can only volunteer 2 to 3 hours a week should become commanders, decision makers, get promoted, anointed, or appointed!  I have not seen a post yet that argues that those who are very limited in their involvement SHOULD be promoted to higher leadership!  My reaction is to the feeling that I have encountered that a 2 to 3 hour a week volunteer is not needed or welcome in the organization.
[/quote


Bill,

It was never my intent to "bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks..."  My original post was in response to the minimal training requirements for CAP officers...which someone suggested as completing the AFIADL 13.  To which I am in total agreement.  As you know, CAP Chaplains are appointment at the rank/grade of either 1st Lt, Capt, or Maj based on their academic work.  But the rank/grade on the epaulet does not necessarily make them an "officer" in the CAP. As mentioned in my previous post, I believe that many issues that unit commanders have with their unit chaplain would be minimal had the Chaplain pursued his/her training beyond the minimal requirement of Level 1.  Many pastors, who have had no previous military background, since they have served in their local church in a key leadership role, often have problems with the whole "chain of command" concept.  There are other matters that could have been resolved with a Chaplain furthering his/her professional development.  To me it is not an issue of desire.  We want to serve.  We want to make a difference.  But the unwillingness to pursue a course like AFIADL 13 or even their specialty track often results in disservice.  Let me relate some of the "war stories" that I have encountered (either 1st hand knowledge or reported by a Squadron CC) during my CAP Chaplain career.

Chain of Command - Chaplains wanting to be referred to by rank ("Major" Last Name) rather than Chaplain; the chaplain who resigned because he didn't get his own private office (now the building where my squadron meets has 2 private offices -- one shared by the DCC/Testing officer and the other is the Commander's.  When the need arises, one is made available to me and a sign is posted: "Chaplain - Counseling in Session"); the chaplain who thinks because he outranks his commander, in complete disregard of the Squadron Commander's stated disappoval, shows the CAP cadets a sex education video produced for the USAFA Cadets; the unit chaplain who writes to a member of BOG regarding not receiving a training award.

Uniforms - Delighted to hear that you wear the USAF Style uniform proudly and properly.  It was my practice in the early years that before any CAP event, I would wear the uniform I was planning to wear and have a cadet inspect it.  But how many Chaplains have you seen wear the uniform who do not meet the weight standards?  I saw one chaplain wearing the USAF style uniform who had his wife sew an additional 6" inches from blue belt to extend another.  Worse than that, at a CSRSC on an active AFB a MLO (member of the Chaplain Service) comes into a session wearing his USAF style uniform with a cell phone, pager, first aid kit, canteen, and Swiss Army knife attached to his blue belt -- we thought he thought he was Batman.  Another chaplain, who read in the 39-1 about tabs, converted his USAF Blue Shirt into a clerical shirt/collar.

Moral Leadership - Chaplains who have wanted to cadets to sing hymns or receite "The Lord's Prayer" during ML; wanting to show a Billy Graham video as ML; using the devotional guide "Our Daily Bread" instead of the Values for Living ("Flight Time") curriculum.  When I have had the opportunity to teach on conducting a ML session, I have always made it point to state that "ML is not a time to either rehash or rehearse a Sunday sermon or Wednesday night Bible Study."

Believe me when I say that I have a litany of these kind of events.  And I believe that the majority of them would not have occurred had the Chaplain pursued the training offered in either the Professional Development program or the specialty track.

I am very appreciative of the time and energy that you and others (myself included) devote to our membership.  We perform a great service.  And I know that there are demands and the juggling of other responsibilities: family...work/church...commitments to other noble community causes.  But we can also do a disservice to the CAP membership if we simply do the minimal requirement of Level 1.  In my CAP Chaplain career, I am not pursuing rank for rank's sake...nor an extra bit of "bling".  Rather I am pursuing "excellence".  And if in the pursuit of excellence, something is changed on my epaulet or a 60 cent ribbon is earned, recognition is given...so be it.  But that is nothing compared to knowing that the assignment completed or the service rendered as been done in a professional way.  As one of my mentors shared with me: "Putting on the cross and a blue suit, does not make you a CAP Chaplain....you become one."

My beef concern is not with you or with others who are serving to the best of their ability...but with those with the attitude that they don't have to do anything else beyond Level 1 to improve their service.  IMHO, if AFIADL 13 was required on the front end, it would give many members -- including chaplains -- a better understanding of the organization and how we are to function within.

[jayleswo]

I was afraid my comment might not be taken as intended. My fault. To clarify, if someone commits to doing a job in CAP that only requires 2-3 hours a week and they can do that job in 2-3 hours a week, then perfect. Outstanding! Love to have you in my unit.

It's the members that agree to do a job that requires 2-3 hours per week, then put zero hours a week into it that is the problem. Or only do the job intermittently, so it's hard to know what to expect from them. Or the job that needs 5 hours a week and they only put in 1 or far less than what is required. I know family and job commitments compete with CAP. In which case, members need to balance their commitments appropriately. I do have the feeling that sometimes people do not take their commitments seriously enough and that's my concern.  Maybe this is a problem because the commander doesn't set expectations properly up front in what is required? I am not sure.

My goal is to spread the work around to as many members as possible so they don't have to put in an overwhelming amount of work into it to avoid the small core group of people that end up doing everything.

In any case, I am pretty happy with where my unit is today, we have some really good people and things are going well. Anyway, we are getting there. 

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[capchiro]

Chappie,

I think we are all singing to the "choir".  The slackers and people that only want to put in minimal time are not on this board, only us hardcore CAP'ers in my opinion.  I do think we need to think of CAP  like we think of our walk with Jesus (or your own handpicked deity).  Now before I burn down below or flames from here let me explain.  A second Lt. puts in his 2-3 hours week, he learns a little and may do even less, he works his real job hard and chases tail even harder.  He eventually does what he needs to and progresses to first Lt.  He puts in his 2-3 hours a week, learns a little more, does a little once in a while, does some admin, becomes somewhat interested in ES and earns his UDF badge.  He works hard in his real job and has found the girl of his dreams.  He eventually completes Level II and becomes a Captain.  He now puts in 2-3 hours a week, learns a little more, works as PAO, and has started his scanner training.  he still works hard at his job and he is about to be a father (yes, he did the right thing as an officer and gentleman and didn't touch her until he was married to her).  After several years, still putting in his 2-3 hours a week, he is still learning, doing more, started teaching the aerospace to the cadets, finished his private license and dreams of the day he can become an orientation pilot, works hard at work and still loves his wife and future cadets (cause that's what good CAP'ers do) and is plodding along.  Some day some one may ask him to step into a command position.  Does he need or want it?  that's up to each of us.  Is he trained for it?  I dare say he is qualified if not over qualified and all of this from 2-3 hours per week over a course of 8-10 years.  I know it doesn't always happen this way, but I truly believe the system was designed to work this way. JMHO

[ZigZag911]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

[ZigZag911]

One thought... The "I'm just a volunteer" thing.  That mindset tends to lead to low expectations and mediocrity.

If a member agrees to a duty assignment, job, task or project then they should do it with the same level of attention, skill and commitment as they would anything else of importance. What kills me is people who take a job and then never really do it. When asked about it, the response is "Well, I'm just a volunteer". So, someone else (usually the Commander) has to do the job.

Is that really the kind of program people are interested in being part of? Is that the kind of organization that gains respect from our customers and other agencies we work with? On the face of it, we have some important missions as an organization to fulfill. Is that part of our retention problem? The people that join with high expectations leave because they are not fulfilled? The people that stay are those who are content with mediocrity. And a small core group of people are left with running the unit, then burning out?

I'm all for high standards and expectations, volunteer or not.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151

Col. I respect your desire for high standards and expectations.  I personally am willing to say that CAP will get the very best I've got...2 to 3 hours a week!  I don't expect a promotion, nor will I get bent out of shape if I am not included in the decision making.  If my 2 to 3 hours a week are not sufficient, then I would hope that my unit commander and/or my wing chaplain would take me aside and say we really don't need what you have to offer us.  That's fine.  I'd have a lot of respect for that commander and/or chaplain.  I enjoy my work with my small squadron of cadets and seniors, and so far, they seem to appreciate my being there every week, leading Moral Leadership, encouraging, listening and trying to increase morale.  When I have the time (which isn't often) I work on doing what I need to do to be qualified as a mission chaplain.

I don't desire to climb CAP's corporate/military ladder.  I have no need to wear higher rank insignia...heck, I'll give back my Captain bars if bothers enough people.  Yet, with the little time I have to offer, I will do the very best I can in service to others.  If this makes me a "mediocre slacker"...so be it.

Chaplain, no one would dream of calling you a slacker, since it sounds like you are keeping the commitment that you made.

[lordmonar]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

Gods! Isn't that one of the signs of the End Times!?

[DogCollar]

CAPCHIRO --thank you very much!

CHAPPIE --thanks for helping me understand better where you are coming from.  I have confronted many a self-anointed "chaplain" in the hospital who will use a patients extreme vulnerability as an opportunity for proselytizing.  There's no excuse for it in CAP.  I wonder if the "chaplains" who aren't willing to go past level one, and legitimate chaplains to begin with?  As I understand it, when you receive a Chaplaincy appointment from NHQ, you have achieved Level two, and therefore should be familiar with the regulations against seeking "converts" and respecting pluralism!  It also strongly puts forward the notion that our "rank" does not equal command!  Also, I'm with you...I have seen chaplains and other senior members that have no business in an AF style uniform.  I think that we both want to see a stronger Chaplain's Corp in CAP!!

Col. Aylsworth--I apologize, sir, for getting in a "snit."  I guess I am just extra sensitive because I'm doing the best that I can at the present, and I honestly wish I had the time to do more service (I still don't want to climb the CAP corporate ladder!!)  It is my hope that I haven't put you are anyone else on the defensive!?

Back to the original question "Quality or Desire?"  It seems to me that everyone has a desire to see greater quality in CAP.  capchiro has pointed out in his last post, it may take many of us YEARS to get to the point where we have the time and training to be the quality leaders that are needed.  In the meantime, you'll get the best that this time constrained individual CAP Chaplain can offer.

[Dragoon]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

[DogCollar]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

Yes, you offer a fair summary.

My opinion is that a test that you can't fail isn't really a test.  For those who want to be promoted should be allowed three opportunities to pass a test in a 12 month period.  However, if said member has taken and failed the test twice, before taking it a third time, the commanding officer of said member should sign off on the third attempt that the member has completed a thorough review of the subject matter, and that both the commanding officer and member desiring promotion realize the consequence of failing a third time is no promotion and no attempt at passing the test can be made for one calendar year.

I think this is fair to the member (allows for test anxiety, mental block, etc...) Fair to the commander who then knows a little bit more about what the member can and cannot handle.  Fair to CAP in that it adds a bit more meat to the bone.

I also think that it is a good idea for those of us who may not want to get promoted to annually sign off that we have reviewed the standards and tasks for the position and rank that we are presently in.  I think this protects CAP and enhances the members internalization of their position.

[lordmonar]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

No.  If you limit a guy from progressing....you also limit his incentive to becoming a better officer.  The skills that a member learns in Level IV can be applied very well at the squadron level.  If we don't offer any bling to go with it...why should he bother to do the training?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Yes...this is a good thing.

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

There is a balance between making a course too easy and one that is too hard.  I think we should make the courses so that the member learns something...that is, it should be meaningful training....but it should not be there simply to weed out the weak, that is make it purposely harder than it needs to be.  But we should have an objective standard for our promotions.  We should make sure that you really have the skills you need for a given rank.  Attendance should not be the only criteria for passing the course.

[ZigZag911]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

Gods! Isn't that one of the signs of the End Times!?

No need to worry unless we get to #3 this weekend!

[ZigZag911]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

Now, back to the original question  - will we put pass/fail kind of things into the beefed up PD?  So that some folks who WANT to get promoted but really don't have the skills needed will be held back?

Or do we just add classes you can't fail (like SLS and CLC), so that anyone with the desire (and free time) to attend can get promoted?

A number of folks I talk to wonder why there isn't some end of course project, exercise, evaluation for Level 1, SLS, CLC....even a 'staff duty analysis' paper or open book exam would at least reinforce the material and hold the students to some kind of accountability...this piece could be on line, post-residence piece of class...CAPF 11 submission would qualify individuals to take the exam

[JohnKachenmeister]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.   

[Chappie]

CAPCHIRO --thank you very much!

CHAPPIE --thanks for helping me understand better where you are coming from.  I have confronted many a self-anointed "chaplain" in the hospital who will use a patients extreme vulnerability as an opportunity for proselytizing.  There's no excuse for it in CAP.  I wonder if the "chaplains" who aren't willing to go past level one, and legitimate chaplains to begin with?  As I understand it, when you receive a Chaplaincy appointment from NHQ, you have achieved Level two, and therefore should be familiar with the regulations against seeking "converts" and respecting pluralism!  It also strongly puts forward the notion that our "rank" does not equal command!  Also, I'm with you...I have seen chaplains and other senior members that have no business in an AF style uniform.  I think that we both want to see a stronger Chaplain's Corp in CAP!!

No problem, Bill.  Just wanted you to know that I do appreciate where you are coming from as well.  As for Chaplains coming in at Level 2....there in lies the confustion that many Chaplains experience.  There is a difference between the Levels of training in the Professional Development program and the specialty track. 

When Chaplains receive their appointment, the Technician Rating is given in 221 Specialty Track (that is not Level 2 -- just a partial requirement for the COP).  The 221 "The CAP Chaplain" needs to be completed in order to promote and receive the Senior Rating.  The 221A "Chaplains Helping Chaplains" needs to be completed in order to receive the Master Rating.  These two courses would help the Chaplain get a grasp on things as well --- and unfortunately looking at the VAWG and the CAWG STR's we have a lot of Technicians, few Seniors and fewer Masters.  It is a false assumption to think that just because a Technician rating has been granted, that one has a working knowledge of CAP and the CAP Chaplain Service.  Though I had a lot of pastoral experience and experience in Law Enforcement chaplaincy...there was a lot more to this than I had initially thought.  Thankfully, I had some great mentors along the way that steered me into the PD program and the Specialty Tracks.  Had it not been for them...I would probably been one of those in the 90% group of Chaplains who had not advanced their training beyond Level 1.

Here's a Training Checklist that I developed for the PCR/CAWG Chaplains to follow:

REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLETE LEVELS OF TRAINING I - V

Chaplains are encouraged to follow the Professional Development Program for Senior Members both for the added experience and exposure to the CAP program.  In order to serve as a Group or Wing Chaplain, one must have completed Level 2.  Here is a step-by-step checklist for you to follow.  Just place a date in the line preceding each requirement to record the fulfillment of that requirement.  Be sure to record that date in your CAPF 45b.

Level 2: Technical Training - Certificate of Proficiency (COP)  (Leadership ribbon)

_________ completion of 221 "The CAP Chaplain" (Squadron Leadership School waived) 
_________ completion of AFIADL - 13 "The CAP Senior Officer's Course"

Level 3: Management - Grover Loening Award  (Senior Rating – Bronze Star on Leadership ribbon)

_________ complete COP
_________ completion of 221a "Chaplains Helping Chaplains" (Corporate Learning Course waived)
_________ serve on staff for 1 year
_________ attend 2 National, Wing, or Region Conferences

Level 4: Command and Staff - Paul E. Garber Award   (Master Rating – Silver Star on Leadership ribbon)

_________ complete Level 3
_________ attend 2 Region Chaplain Staff Colleges within 5 years
_________ serve on staff of Squadron Leadership School/Corporate Learning Course or  Wing, Regional,
                   National Conference or prepare and present a SLS or CLC
_________ complete 221a "Chaplains Helping Chaplains"
_________ serve 2 years on staff
_________ make a CAP presentation to a non-CAP group or prepare a aerospace manuscript for publication or earn the Yeager Award

Level 5: Executive - Gill Robb Wilson Award

_________ complete Level 4
_________ serve 3 years on staff 
_________ complete National Staff College or Air Command and Staff College
_________ serve as a staff member of a Regional Staff College or National Staff College or serve a director of an SLS or CLC
_________ conduct a Level I orientation course

The "rank does not equal command" concept is hard for some to understand -- especially if they haven't taken the time to read the 221.  As you know Chaplains at all levels of CAP serve at the expressed desire of the commander.  There was a situation here a few years ago where a Chaplain -- because of his attitude and actions -- lost his squadron assignment (i.e. Commander refused to put him on the PA).  Because of his reputation, no other squadron commanders would take him.  The only way a Chaplain can be 2b'd is if his ecclessiastical endorsement is taken away --- and the grounds for his unacceptability in serving at squadron were not the type that his endorser would take away his endorsement (.i.e. were not unethical, immoral reasons....just lack of CAP common sense and poor judgment...but enough that the Squadron CC couldn't/wouldn't work with him).  So he was assigned to the Wing holding squadron until he woke up and smelled the coffee and figured out that CAP was not the place for him to be...so he didn't renew his membership.  But this was an example of one who did not pursue his training...was content to put on the blue suit/rank on epaulet/cross on chest and strut around. 

And Capchiro...we are definitely on the same page...sing it louder 

[Chappie]

One thought... The "I'm just a volunteer" thing.  That mindset tends to lead to low expectations and mediocrity.

If a member agrees to a duty assignment, job, task or project then they should do it with the same level of attention, skill and commitment as they would anything else of importance. What kills me is people who take a job and then never really do it. When asked about it, the response is "Well, I'm just a volunteer". So, someone else (usually the Commander) has to do the job.

Is that really the kind of program people are interested in being part of? Is that the kind of organization that gains respect from our customers and other agencies we work with? On the face of it, we have some important missions as an organization to fulfill. Is that part of our retention problem? The people that join with high expectations leave because they are not fulfilled? The people that stay are those who are content with mediocrity. And a small core group of people are left with running the unit, then burning out?

I'm all for high standards and expectations, volunteer or not.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151

Col. I respect your desire for high standards and expectations.  I personally am willing to say that CAP will get the very best I've got...2 to 3 hours a week!  I don't expect a promotion, nor will I get bent out of shape if I am not included in the decision making.  If my 2 to 3 hours a week are not sufficient, then I would hope that my unit commander and/or my wing chaplain would take me aside and say we really don't need what you have to offer us.  That's fine.  I'd have a lot of respect for that commander and/or chaplain.  I enjoy my work with my small squadron of cadets and seniors, and so far, they seem to appreciate my being there every week, leading Moral Leadership, encouraging, listening and trying to increase morale.  When I have the time (which isn't often) I work on doing what I need to do to be qualified as a mission chaplain.

I don't desire to climb CAP's corporate/military ladder.  I have no need to wear higher rank insignia...heck, I'll give back my Captain bars if bothers enough people.  Yet, with the little time I have to offer, I will do the very best I can in service to others.  If this makes me a "mediocre slacker"...so be it.

Chaplain, no one would dream of calling you a slacker, since it sounds like you are keeping the commitment that you made.

Gives ZigZag a hearty "amen"  :angel:

[Chappie]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.   

John -- that is why during my career I have pursued all the Levels I-V in the the PD program...attained a Master Rating in the Chaplain, Cadet Programs, and Professional Development training tracks....earned the Yeager Award (and have presented AE lessons at the Squadron...as well as on occasion gave presentations at local service clubs)....have a ES card as well as the Mission Chaplain rating.  It wasn't easy...and took some time...but I feel I am much better prepared for the tasks that come my way.   

[Chappie]

While I agree that we should require some sort of ES, CP and AE requirment to the promotion system/specialty tracks we don't have to make everyone an expert in every area of of our three missions.

And on that we agree too (that's two in a row!)

Gods! Isn't that one of the signs of the End Times!?

Looking through the Scriptures to see .... hmmmmm.... let me do some more research on that and will get back to you

[lordmonar]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

[Chappie]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

Concurs ... from the Chaplain service perspective:  we have some chaplains that serve Senior Squadrons (they also serve as Scanners/Observers) .... we have some chaplains in Composite Squadrons (who serve as GTL/M)...we have some chaplains that serve Cadet Squadrons (active in Cadet Programs).   Not all our Chaplains are ES qualified (though they should if they want to participate in SARX/Missions) -- then there are some who are Mission Chaplain rated.   There are a few Chaplains who have earned the Yeager.   The point is that we all have a working knowledge of the 3-fold mission of CAP...but very few are qualified in all three missions.  It would be great if we all could devote 24/7 to CAP and be ready (qualified for any of the three missions)) when the bell rings...but it is difficult enough many of our members to be qualified in a specialty track.  I have no qualms about the chaplain who serves a Senior Squadron -- has a Scanner rating and no interest to attend Encampment or serve on the staff of a BCS/ATS since he is 80+ years of age.

[Dragoon]

It sounds like we're in agreement that folks who only, work at squadron level are extremely valuable - but shouldn't expect to all become Lt Cols.  Is that a fair summary?

No.  If you limit a guy from progressing....you also limit his incentive to becoming a better officer.  The skills that a member learns in Level IV can be applied very well at the squadron level.  If we don't offer any bling to go with it...why should he bother to do the training?

I'm not sure it's fair to link "being promoted" with "progressing"

After all, a member does not have to be promoted very far to progress through the PD program.  He can earn all the ribbons for the five levels without getting promoted.  We had a SM do that - all he had to do was get a grade waiver for RSC and NSC attendance.

But you're right in that "getting a ribbon" is not as much of an incentive as "getting a ribbon AND getting new rank insignia"



But here's a different thought - what if Level 3 was rewickered to be entirely about Group level operations, Level 4 about how to be a Wing level director, and Level 5 focused on Levels above Wing?

If so, while the information might be "nice to know" for someone who only works at squadron level their whole life, it shouldn't make a big difference in their effectiveness.  So Level 2 would probably be enough.  (

What this would do is focus our higher level PD resources on folks who have the experience to truly grasp the material, and the need to actually know it.  In the same way that the Army doesn't let E-5 sergeants attend the Sergeant Major's Academy - the information wouldn't be that valuable to them, and it's not worth the resources of the service to support them going.

I recognize that isn't the way PD is set up today (for example, our RSC teaches drill and ceremony and customs and courtesies - things you'd expect a member to get way back in level 1.)  But could we set it up that way?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

[Dragoon]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

[lordmonar]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

Yes and no.  The USAF does not expect you to know anything except your assigned duty.  If they assign you outside of your AFSC they send you to school to get the training you need.  But they don't expect you to know all of your missions.  A fighter wing commander does not know how to run a maintenance group...if he came up from an Ops Group.  If a Fighter Squadron Commander gets shifted over to command a maintenance group...they send him to the basic maintenance officer's course.  If for some reason he can't go....he relies heavily on his Command Chief and Maintenance Staff Officers to get him up to speed.

Now....I do think that we should make everyone do a little of everything as part of our PD.  Require an ES rating at each level of training, require some contact with the CP and internal and external AE programs.  But.....that is a far cray of being qualified to participate in all three missions.  I would say that they should be familiar of all three missions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

Medical supply would be so confusing that putting someone not qualified in there would be a war-stopper.  But why couldn't you be the S-1, S-2, or S-3?  Or for that matter, the commander?  A medical battalion moves the same way any other battalion moves, and the service delivery is done by medical personnel in units.  Once you learn the capability of the units, why couldn't you establish a functional HQ?

[JohnKachenmeister]

The question is, though, why shouldn't you be qualified to do YOUR JOB on a mission?

If your specialty track is Administration, why shouldn't you be qualified to perform admin tasks on a mission?

If your specialty track is Finance, why shouldn't you be qualified to perform mission finance operations?

If your specialty is Logistics, why couldn't you be qualified to do mission supply?

I could go on, but such would be redundant.

[Dragoon]

I'm not sure I'm with you.  There's no way I could command a medical battallion.  Or even serve in many of the primary staff positions.

Medical supply would be so confusing that putting someone not qualified in there would be a war-stopper.  But why couldn't you be the S-1, S-2, or S-3?  Or for that matter, the commander?  A medical battalion moves the same way any other battalion moves, and the service delivery is done by medical personnel in units.  Once you learn the capability of the units, why couldn't you establish a functional HQ?

The 1 or 2 would be doable - those are pretty generic.  But the 3 or commander?  I don't think so.  It would require a good knowledge of medical ops.  Yeah, I could muddle through, but the unit wouldn't be half as good as one led by a guy who came up in such units. 

[flyguy06]

Frankly, we are volunteers.  What you do and how much you do is up to you.  But to hold the rank of an officer, you should be QUALIFIED to participate in all 3 missions.

John then I have to say that they are no officers anywhere in any service.

Ask the Chief of Staff of the Air Force if he is qualified to participate an all the missions of the USAF.

That is why we have staff officers.

I do not understand, LM.

As an officer, you frequently move from staff positions to command and back again.

You also are assigned duty in and out of your specialty, and acquire secondary specailties along the way.  An officer should be qualified to step into any assignment appropriate to his grade.

I just dont see a Security Forces Officer stepping taking over a Fighter Squadron.

[JohnKachenmeister]

But you see fighter pilots taking over SF squadrons.  They have to get qualified in the field, but so what?

CAP, on the other hand, does not use units to accomplish its missions.  The units are merely training bases.  We set up a task force for every mission, beginning with appointment of an IC, who then structures his force from among qualified individuals.

My point is, if you want to be a PAO for example, why don't you want to be at least qualified to do PAO work on a mission?

If you are a pilot, and you want to go into the Operations specialty track, then your training should be toward Mission Pilot status.  If all you want to do is fly cadets on O-flights, track Cadet Programs or Aerospace Education, which would not have an ES mission-related skill component.

All I'm saying is that a dual-tracked training program is wasteful and confusing.  We should not have one "Specialty Track" and a separate "ES Training" track for the same skills.

[flyguy06]

No, I was speaking of the overall CAP experience. Somebody said youneed to involved in all three missions to be successful in CAP and to be in a senior command position. Idisagree and was saying for instance in thr USAF you dont have to be qualified inevery job in the USAF to be a Senior ranking officer.

In other words. You dont have to be involved in CP, ES, and AE in order to be an effective Wing Commander just like you dont have to be qualified as a pilot, security forces officer, logistics officer and intle officer in order to be an effective USAF Wing Commander. Its all about leadership and Management skills.

[DNall]

We have a guy here I just saw on Sunday that was a command pilot (FAC) in Vietnam, came back & after he stopped flying he moved over to a command slot in SF. Got Command pilot on top, basic LE under that, & SS/DFC on the top line under that. It's not at all uncommon for officers with operational experience to move over to other type units.

Flying units do require CCs to be flight rated officer though, could be a non-current transport navigator commanding a fighter unit, but that's fine. The only reason a cop couldn't go back that direction is the cost & length of the training, otherwise there's no restriction to it. If they want him over there bad enough to get him some wings then he's in.

I would agree though that it is for sure about leadership & mgmt skills, that we're failing terribly to get to our people. I don't think the conversation is about what you NEED to do now to move up, but rather what you SHOULD do, and if that's the case should it be added to the PD program.

Now, sorry I came in late, what's the point of this conversation? You want people to be minimally competent in CP, AE, & ES by the time they get to Major. Sure that sounds great. Make Yeager mandatory plus an external AE project (eagle scout style); require a stint in CP. The test thru master & other stuff you're supposed to do aren't very hard. Maybe encampment staff, command a major activity, go on an NCSA. That'd be good. Then ES, either get the badge or hold a branch/section level job. That'd be a good solid set of things to add. It doesn't necessarily mean you can go do those things right now, but you've had serious exposure & made a contribution at some point in your career.

Far as tie in the spec ratings to ES. I think absolutely. We're only talking about a handful. Comm is already tied in. Personnel & Admin should tie in starting at MSA & ending at section chief w/ the master rating. You already have to be able to do paperwork for cadets & AE even if you're in an ES oriented senior sq. It just makes sense to tie in the other way too, we just don't have nearly enough people going for those mission staff jobs, everybody wants the sex stuff (branch directors & IC or nothing at all). Finance ties in the same way. I don't know what's up w/ the ES track these days, but it should tie in, as should flight ops work w/ AOBD, logistics. It's pretty obvious when they have the same names.

[lordmonar]

I will agree with John...that as officers we should all experince all three missions that CAP does.  But I think that what we are argueing is here is to what degree should that expeince be?

Obviously we cannot nor should we try to be experts in everything.  We just don't have the time.

But I do think that everyone should get some familurisation training in all three missions.

So that means everyone should get at least one ES rating.  Everyone one should participate in some sort of cadet activity...(ES guys can hold an ES training weekend for cadets, cadet O-rides, AE guys can do the model rocketry program for cadets).  Everyone should also particpate in the AE program..(everyone takes the Phase III and IV AE tests just like the cadets and require the Yeager for LT Col instead of it being optional....and everyone should have some sort of external AE expeirnce....participate in a AE brief to and outside organisation).

This makes the officers more well rounded.  It will allow them to see how their cog fits into the big machine and will make them better at doing their jobs back at base.

[Dragoon]

The other area of "well roundedness" which our commanders often fail at is the support stuff.   Most importantly finance, logistics and legal.

I've seen more commanders get in trouble for these things than for poor execution of missions.

Probably because our missions are fun, and it's easy to get enthusiastic folks to run them.  But the support stuff......not so much fun.  So you don't have as many enthusiastic staffers ensuring it's done well.

I don't think every CAP "officer" needs a lot of this - but anyone aspiring to any level of command or Wing Staff probably needs a pretty thorough knowledge of these areas.

[flyguy06]

I agree that well roundeness is important. I thought you guys were sayng they should be fully engulfed in all missions. People just dont have the time. The most active people in CAP either are retired or own their own business or woek from home. Most people are not inthat situation.

Everyone cant take every weekend off to do some CAP activity. We have families and some of us work on weekends. I am nthe National Guard . Coinsidentally my Wing like to have SAREX's onthe same wekend I have Guard drill, so guess what? I cant attend therefore I cant get me ES qualifications.

Does that mean I should be deprived the right ro be a Group or higher Commander?

[Dragoon]

Technically, you don't need SAREXs to get qualified.  You can get the prep and familiarization stuff done with an evaluator, and then you can participate on 2 training or actual missions.  So, depending on the specialty, helping out with a couple of ELT searchs may just square you away.

[lordmonar]

No..no...not at all Flyguy,

I was not saying everyone had to be hard core 100% into all the missions.

I was thinking something like MSA or MRO or MS or UDF being required for Level II.  Training does not take a lot of time..only requires two SAREX's....so minimal involvment.  On the CP side of things...develope a list of one or two day events that relate to the other missions model rocketry, o-rides, ES training weekend.
On the AE side...it is interal AE (take the test) and external AE...assist with a presentation (not give it but assist the AE guys).

For level III more of the same but at a higher level or responsibility/involvement.  It will take a little more time and commitment....but that is what we are looking for in our majors.

For level IV even more so...to maybe includeing being on Encampment Staff, completing the Yeager (not optional as it is now), doing an AE presentationn (instead of one of the options) and getting an ES rating in the branch or section level.

I would not expect anyone to devote any more time to any one mission (outside of their chosen field) then they would devote time to got to RSC or other training that we do now.

[JohnKachenmeister]

My point is that ES should be incorporated into the specialty track.  In other words, you should be able, at the technician level, to do your assigned job both "In garrison" and "In the field."

Some specialty tracks would not have an ES component, like AE and CP.  If you are religiously opposed to performing ES missions, then go for those specialties.

All other specialty tracks have a mission-related component.  Having a guy with a masters rating in finance who is not qualified to handle mission finance in a pinch is not a master of his specialty.

[ZigZag911]

No, I was speaking of the overall CAP experience. Somebody said youneed to involved in all three missions to be successful in CAP and to be in a senior command position. Idisagree and was saying for instance in thr USAF you dont have to be qualified inevery job in the USAF to be a Senior ranking officer.

You don't need to be "expert" in all the missions to hold a senior command, but you do need familiarity and basic knowledge of all three missions, with expertise in one of them.

[ZigZag911]

Does that mean I should be deprived the right ro be a Group or higher Commander?

First, command is a responsibility, not a "right".

Secondly, you come across a good officer....so I would presume you would not want a group or higher command until you had been thoroughly prepared to start it (realizing that in any of these positions there is a certain amount of OJT)

[flyguy06]

That is very true Zigzag,

About command though. A commander has to be an overall manager, He doesnt need to be an expert in the field. I used the USAF before as an example. Let me use the ARmy since that is what I know the best.

I am an Infantry Officer. Could I comand a Quartermaster Company? Sure. I just know the basics of Quartermaster stuff, but I would have quartermaster NCO's who are the subjetc matter experts and they would paint me a picture so I could make proper decisions.

Same goea for CAP. You should have a general knowledge of all three missions I agre, but you dont need to be an expert at them all.

[ZigZag911]

That is very true Zigzag,

About command though. A commander has to be an overall manager, He doesnt need to be an expert in the field. I used the USAF before as an example. Let me use the ARmy since that is what I know the best.

I am an Infantry Officer. Could I comand a Quartermaster Company? Sure. I just know the basics of Quartermaster stuff, but I would have quartermaster NCO's who are the subjetc matter experts and they would paint me a picture so I could make proper decisions.

Same goea for CAP. You should have a general knowledge of all three missions I agre, but you dont need to be an expert at them all.

Agreed!!!