Retired General Officers in CAP

[Dragoon]

The discussion points on the problem.

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsiblity and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

No wonder we're as messed up as a soup sandwich, culture wise.

There is zero - ZERO authority in CAP based on officer grade - I've run this through several CAP legal officers.  It's all based on position, regardless of grade.

Until we reconcile this basic disconnect, the argument can will go round and round.


If we replaced USAF style grade with CAP specific grade, the problem goes away. 

      "No General, you don't get to be a CAP General, but neither does anyone else.  Here are you flight officer bars.  We'll spot you a couple of FO levels because of your value to us.  Feel free to keep your BG (ret) line in your signature when you think it will help CAP."

      Plus no arguments about "pulling rank" because it could be spelled out that there is no "rank" amongst the levels of CAP flight officers.

If we only gave out USAF style grade to those WITH authority and responsibility, the problem also goes away.

     "Sure General, you can wear CAP stars - if you're willing to work in a CAP GO position.  We've got an opening as a USAF liaison - interested?"

     (Of course, if we want grade to reflect authority and responsiblity, we'd have to find a way to remove the grade when someone takes a less important job - USAF doesn't do this, but USAF Wing Commanders also aren't allowed to take a follow on job as a squadron staff officer either!"

[Hawk200]

The discussion points on the problem.

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsiblity and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

No wonder we're as messed up as a soup sandwich, culture wise.

There is zero - ZERO authority in CAP based on officer grade - I've run this through several CAP legal officers.  It's all based on position, regardless of grade.

Until we reconcile this basic disconnect, the argument can will go round and round.


If we replaced USAF style grade with CAP specific grade, the problem goes away. 

      "No General, you don't get to be a CAP General, but neither does anyone else.  Here are you flight officer bars.  We'll spot you a couple of FO levels because of your value to us.  Feel free to keep your BG (ret) line in your signature when you think it will help CAP."

      Plus no arguments about "pulling rank" because it could be spelled out that there is no "rank" amongst the levels of CAP flight officers.

If we only gave out USAF style grade to those WITH authority and responsibility, the problem also goes away.

     "Sure General, you can wear CAP stars - if you're willing to work in a CAP GO position.  We've got an opening as a USAF liaison - interested?"

     (Of course, if we want grade to reflect authority and responsiblity, we'd have to find a way to remove the grade when someone takes a less important job - USAF doesn't do this, but USAF Wing Commanders also aren't allowed to take a follow on job as a squadron staff officer either!"

Replacing a military rank system with any other rank system does not eliminate the problem. It just dresses it up with different clothes.

Four FO stripes are higher than one. It's simple numbers. The guy with four has more of something than the person with one. Same issue, different terms.

You want to eliminate the rank issue? Eliminate the rank entirely, go to something like the old strips that had "Squadron staff", "Squadron Commander", "Group staff", "Group commander", etc. There's your rank problem solved. No rank in the way.

But creating "haves" and "have nots" with a position based system is a problem. There will be people that will never be allowed to have a command (in some cases that's a good thing, in other cases very bad). You can not tell me that it would work on a merit based system. No such system is infallible, or ever will be. Even a Utopia has issues.

People will leave if such a system is enacted. You can stand on a soapbox and announce that you're right all day long, but if you don't have anyone to accomplish your mission, you have failed.

The base problem is human nature. You cannot and will not take that out of the equation.

As far as authority, we can be professionals and obey those appointed over us, like we chose to do. Putting FO stripes on a person, and demanding their obedience because you have officer rank insignia when they don't isn't going to solve the problem.

Another issue to deal with. The military has mandatory retirements, CAP doesn't. Locking people into positions with no advancement when they don't have to leave is not going to solve anything. And some of our members have decided to do this for the long haul.

[mikeylikey]

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsibility and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

I think that was done to recruit members into CAP.  Making everyone an Officer makes them feel better about themselves. 

It may also have something to do with CAP Corporate taking total control of daily operations with little or no AF direct command when the organization was restructured to make sure the AF did not appoint the CAP Commander. 

Either way, we are where we are.  With the VSAF program, I think in a few years there may not even be any discussion of RANK/GRADE in CAP, as it will disappear completely.  Could that be a NHQ and AF move?  Sure!  What better way to get rid of rank than to create a program that has none!

[Dragoon]

I don't think it's quite as dour as you make it out to be.

Replacing a military rank system with any other rank system does not eliminate the problem. It just dresses it up with different clothes.

Four FO stripes are higher than one. It's simple numbers. The guy with four has more of something than the person with one. Same issue, different terms.

For FO stripes are MORE than one - not neccesarily HIGHER.  Folks expect military rank to denote authority.  But a CAP specific system can be anything we want it to be.  If we make it clear that FO grade is for training, then effectively we have introduced collar-based skills badges.  A little wonky, but not unworkable.

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

You want to eliminate the rank issue? Eliminate the rank entirely, go to something like the old strips that had "Squadron staff", "Squadron Commander", "Group staff", "Group commander", etc. There's your rank problem solved. No rank in the way.

Yup, that would work too.  No muss, no fuss.  the only downside is one less reward for completing PD.  We'd probably see PD progression decrease.  Not sure if that's really a big deal, though.  The "CAP specific grade" proposal is actually very close to eliminating grade - it just includes a minor bennie for completing training.

But creating "haves" and "have nots" with a position based system is a problem. There will be people that will never be allowed to have a command (in some cases that's a good thing, in other cases very bad). You can not tell me that it would work on a merit based system. No such system is infallible, or ever will be. Even a Utopia has issues.

People will leave if such a system is enacted. You can stand on a soapbox and announce that you're right all day long, but if you don't have anyone to accomplish your mission, you have failed.

Not sure what you mean by this.  If you mean "if we only reward the guys doing the work, people will quit," you're probably right.  On the other hand, the kind of folks who want all the reward without doing the hard work are not guys we really need. 

If we want the best leadership, we have to reward the best leadership.  As long as you can make 0-5 doing virtually nothing, why the heck volunteer for a tough Wing director or group CC job?

This is why, I think, so many of these jobs are vacant, or are filled by an unqualified guy because, frankly, no one better applied.  No reason - you can get all the bling without taking on any responsibility.  This is why so many squadron commander positions are filled by the guy who didn't take a step backward quickly enough.  :-)

As far as authority, we can be professionals and obey those appointed over us, like we chose to do. Putting FO stripes on a person, and demanding their obedience because you have officer rank insignia when they don't isn't going to solve the problem.

It may help.   Putting officer rank on the squadron commander because he's in charge makes perfect sense. It becomes an indicator of his authority.   As long as you take it off him if he leaves the job.  You could do the same thing with some kind of positional designator and rules to describe how you treat the guy wearing it.

Then it becomes a positional indicator. It denotes authority based on the job.  And it is removed when the need for that authority has passed.

Another issue to deal with. The military has mandatory retirements, CAP doesn't. Locking people into positions with no advancement when they don't have to leave is not going to solve anything. And some of our members have decided to do this for the long haul.

Not a problem.  Either solution (CAP specific grade or temporary military grade) works with this.

We all, in our CAP "careers" will move up and down the chain.  So if we eliminate permanent military grade, and either replace it with CAP grade (denoting no authority, but recognizing longevity) or temporary military grade or position insignia (denotes authority, but is based on current position) we move closer to a grade system that reflects how our workforce actually functions.

[Dragoon]

We have adopted the symbols (grade) used to designate responsibility and authority.

And instead, we use them to indicate training and longevity.

I think that was done to recruit members into CAP.  Making everyone an Officer makes them feel better about themselves. 

It may also have something to do with CAP Corporate taking total control of daily operations with little or no AF direct command when the organization was restructured to make sure the AF did not appoint the CAP Commander. 

Either way, we are where we are.  With the VSAF program, I think in a few years there may not even be any discussion of RANK/GRADE in CAP, as it will disappear completely.  Could that be a NHQ and AF move?  Sure!  What better way to get rid of rank than to create a program that has none!

I do believe that if CAP moves into more USAF support, our USAF-style grade will become an increasing sore point.  I don't think it will be eliminated, but I think it very likely that we may go to all pin-on grade at some point so we can remove it when working side-by-side with the real military.  After all, by the military definition we aren't officers - we are volunteer USAF civilians.  An honorable title all by itself.  And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

[mikeylikey]

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

[ddelaney103]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

[Hawk200]

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

Being Army Aviation myself, I can tell you it's far different than anything else I've ever worked.

I have personally addressed LTC's by their first name, while in the helicopter, not to just be casual, but because everyone on that bird is responsible for it's survival, and I was instructed to do so. Addressing people by rank in that setting is a sure way to get chewed out. It's happened to me. I got over being stuck in the formal rank, last name mode after a great deal of time.

Most of the officers I fly with prefer that in the bird, in the after flight brief, and in casual settings. First names are the norm, not the exception in Army Aviation.  There are definitely settings in which it is not appropriate, but everyone pretty much knows when that is.

The reasons for it are very valid. A warrant that addresses you by first name is not being lax, it's just his culture to do so.

[Dragoon]

I've spent a fair amount of time amongst aviation warrants in the Army, and marveled at how casual they are.  No saluting, no pulling rank, lots of first names.  A little added respect for the CW4 over the CW2 because of experience.  I think that kind of culture would work very nicely for CAP.

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

\

Very different breed.  Non-aviation generally filling warrants are filling leadership roles alongside EMs and officers. Aviation types are very different.  And within their world (which is much closer to the CAP world than artillerY) it works out just fine.

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

Nope, no requirement to wear the CAC card visibly throughout USAF or the Army.  Pentagon badges, for example don't list grade at all.

Their subordinates know who "outranks whom" because of their position.  Not pay grade.

[Dragoon]

I spent most of my time around Artillery Warrant Officers, not aviation so my experience may be different.  However, I never found Warrant Officers to be casual about anything.  They were very professional when dealing with each other and Commissioned Officers.  I have busted some Warrants (of the aviation variety, and recent graduates of the "High School to Flight School" program) for not following military etiquette.  I once had a 19 year old WO fresh from school call me "Mike".  Man I rarely "loose it", but I lost it that day. 

Being Army Aviation myself, I can tell you it's far different than anything else I've ever worked.

I have personally addressed LTC's by their first name, while in the helicopter, not to just be casual, but because everyone on that bird is responsible for it's survival, and I was instructed to do so. Addressing people by rank in that setting is a sure way to get chewed out. It's happened to me. I got over being stuck in the formal rank, last name mode after a great deal of time.

Most of the officers I fly with prefer that in the bird, in the after flight brief, and in casual settings. First names are the norm, not the exception in Army Aviation.  There are definitely settings in which it is not appropriate, but everyone pretty much knows when that is.

The reasons for it are very valid. A warrant that addresses you by first name is not being lax, it's just his culture to do so.

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

[ddelaney103]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Precisely.

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Decoupling RM jewelery from our PD structure will solve a bunch of problems by taking us out of their game.  We'll be comparing Apples to Oranges instead of Apples to "Oranges that look like Apples."

[Hawk200]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It's not warrrant culture, it's Army Aviation culture. I address both warrants and commisioned by first name during flight, in the after brief, and the casual situations I mentioned. Most of the time when I call them by rank, they tell me "Just call me John. We're not too formal here."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

The warrant culture is not one of "less training", the Aviation culture is just different. Flight training is almost 18 months, and that does not incluede the WO course, or commisioning courses. If anything, it's far more training than others.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Presented in this manner, the concept has merit. Doesn't cover the upper levels of management, but it is limited to a five step system that is currently the culture of the general CAP membership. Will have to give this one further thought.

If full officer ranks were retained for command levels, I would consider allowing those having held prior command positions to retain their rank. But there would have to be a few requirements for it, not just "been there, done that". If a person made no effort to command, a warrant bracket would be fine, and the ones having held command would maintain the rank they worked for.

Maybe permit a person to revert to their previous warrant rank and advance in that bracket, or else maintain their command rank permanently. The only officer side advancement would be to move up to a position that is higher.

Just a few thoughts. Bouncing stuff back and forth could actually result in a workable system.

[Hawk200]

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Tell a retired major that you won't award an equivalent rank, and I'll bet money that you won't get him.

It's actually an issue though. How do we deal with both current and former military officers?

Let's not bother with the "Well, if they don't accept it, we don't need them" argument. It's an argument that is completely incompatible with the concept of recruiting in the first place. We're definitely not in a position to be turning away people that are well qualified, and would be an asset to us.

[ddelaney103]

Exactly.  My time with Aviation was in Cav units - being a tanker/scout, it was....interesting to see their culture up close.  But once I got into CAP I got to thinking "that warrant-kind of culture would work a lot better for CAP than the standard military culture I'm used to."

It's not warrrant culture, it's Army Aviation culture. I address both warrants and commisioned by first name during flight, in the after brief, and the casual situations I mentioned. Most of the time when I call them by rank, they tell me "Just call me John. We're not too formal here."

It requires less indoctrination/training, allows flexibility in leadership from task to task, is "military" enough to be attractive from a recruiting standpoint, motivates folks to complete additional training and education, and would integrate well with USAF because since they don't have warrants, there would be no comparison  We'd  be recognized as being not above, not below, but "different."  Which we are.

The warrant culture is not one of "less training", the Aviation culture is just different. Flight training is almost 18 months, and that does not incluede the WO course, or commisioning courses. If anything, it's far more training than others.

The training he's talking about here is of the "military customs" variety.  If we settled on a "first names except for the "commissioned" officers, things would go a lot smoother.  Looking at Army Aviation, it doesn't seem to harm their professionalism any.

If you wear Captains bars, USAF majors will compare you with USAF captains who work for them,  USAF NCOs will be comparing you against real captains they work for and with, and USAF captains will constantly be comparing you to themselves and their peers.  If you wear something different - you eliminate all of those comparisons.  Then you can get down to work.

Presented in this manner, the concept has merit. Doesn't cover the upper levels of management, but it is limited to a five step system that is currently the culture of the general CAP membership. Will have to give this one further thought.

If full officer ranks were retained for command levels, I would consider allowing those having held prior command positions to retain their rank. But there would have to be a few requirements for it, not just "been there, done that". If a person made no effort to command, a warrant bracket would be fine, and the ones having held command would maintain the rank they worked for.

Maybe permit a person to revert to their previous warrant rank and advance in that bracket, or else maintain their command rank permanently. The only officer side advancement would be to move up to a position that is higher.

Just a few thoughts. Bouncing stuff back and forth could actually result in a workable system.

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

[Hawk200]

The training he's talking about here is of the "military customs" variety.  If we settled on a "first names except for the "commissioned" officers, things would go a lot smoother.  Looking at Army Aviation, it doesn't seem to harm their professionalism any.

Aviation comissioned and warrants get the same training in C&C as everyone else. They've gone through the WOC, or some type of OCS (or similar) commissioning school. And in flight, first names includes comissioned officers.

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

Non concur?

[ddelaney103]

It also avoids all the "I'm a retired GOFO, (or Maj, etc) what do I get?" problem.  We could say, "Sorry, Major is reserved for currently serving Sqdn Commanders and Group Staff, but we will make you a FO 5." 

Tell a retired major that you won't award an equivalent rank, and I'll bet money that you won't get him.

It's actually an issue though. How do we deal with both current and former military officers?

Let's not bother with the "Well, if they don't accept it, we don't need them" argument. It's an argument that is completely incompatible with the concept of recruiting in the first place. We're definitely not in a position to be turning away people that are well qualified, and would be an asset to us.

If you explain that to wear Major grade you have to be doing a Major's work, they'll probably understand.  If you give them advanced CAP grade like every other O-4 who comes in it should be enough.  They wouldn't expect to become Majors in the local VFD, would they?

CAP grade is different from RM grade, or at least everyone keeps telling me.

[ddelaney103]

Non concur on the retaining grade.  I'd be OK with wearing "highest grade earned" for formal events, but I think we need to follow the model of Cincinnatus here.

Non concur?

Don't agree - when you leave the position you should take off the grade.  Otherwise, people will work the system to get the grade and keep it forever.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Better idea... unless someone already said this...

LET THE RETIRED GENERALS KEEP WEARING THE AIR FORCE UNIFORM. They're CAP members, but we defer to their "real military" grade... and on their CAP ID cards, they say, for instance "Lt Gen USAF Ret".

They keep their rank and are recognized as such... and they're members of CAP, as well.

Or something like that.

[mikeylikey]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

What?!?!  ?  You get one and MUST register a PIN Number with it.  IT does have your grade on it (at least the ones I have seen walking around EVERYWHERE).  Most people refer to the "CAC" as a "CAC Card".  I see Civilians stick the freaking cards into readers to access their networks, turn on the webmail, and do everything but buy them a cup of coffee!  I may have been away from the normal routine for a while now (ROTC LAND), but I am pretty sure it is the same today as it was last year.  I have not seen those new Cards that were to be introduced yet, but did notice changes to the current CAC like the removal of "Active Duty" "Reserve" etc. from the front of the one I was just issued 6 months ago.  

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

Did you "miss" the whole cultural shift in the Army that started two years ago?  The Civilian Corps has taken a huge step.  They even have their own Creed now.

The last time I looked, Civilians were in charge of the DOD, and the Uniformed Services of THIS COUNTRY.  I was being overly simplistic if you missed it........I wanted to get across, that Soldiers who work for a Civilian "know who their boss is".  Heck,  Army just published new guidelines for Civilians that oversee both Officer and Enlisted personell on how they are to do evaluations.  

[ddelaney103]

And even paid USAF civilians don't wear grade - even when supervising USAF military!

Sure they do.  Most all civilians employed with the DOD wear their CAC Cards clipped to their shirt.  Their Military subordinates know exactly who outranks whom. 

First, a civilian CAC (not "CAC Card," neither ATM machine nor PIN number) does not have grade on the front.   It may not have it on the back, either - unless they include it for Geneva purposes.

What?!?!  ?  You get one and MUST register a PIN Number with it.  IT does have your grade on it (at least the ones I have seen walking around EVERYWHERE).  Most people refer to the "CAC" as a "CAC Card".  I see Civilians stick the freaking cards into readers to access their networks, turn on the webmail, and do everything but buy them a cup of coffee!  I may have been away from the normal routine for a while now (ROTC LAND), but I am pretty sure it is the same today as it was last year.  I have not seen those new Cards that were to be introduced yet, but did notice changes to the current CAC like the removal of "Active Duty" "Reserve" etc. from the front of the one I was just issued 6 months ago.  

Second, civilians don't "outrank" anyone.  We may supervise or otherwise be in authority over Soldiers, but that is based on org charts and positional authority.  Civilians have no intrinsic authority based on their pay grade, unlike officers.

Did you "miss" the whole cultural shift in the Army that started two years ago?  The Civilian Corps has taken a huge step.  They even have their own Creed now.

The last time I looked, Civilians were in charge of the DOD, and the Uniformed Services of THIS COUNTRY.  I was being overly simplistic if you missed it........I wanted to get across, that Soldiers who work for a Civilian "know who their boss is".  Heck,  Army just published new guidelines for Civilians that oversee both Officer and Enlisted personell on how they are to do evaluations.  

Look the "Department of Redundancy Department" says you do not call them "Common Access Card (CAC) cards" or "Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) machines" or "Personal ID Number (PIN) numbers," OK?

Also, I checked my civilian CAC (twice) and there is no pay grade on it, front or back.  A few CAC's for civilians who deploy into combat zones have their pay grade on the front, but they are the execption.  Examples (small, hard to see examples, mind) can be seen at:

https://www.cac.mil/Home.do

Finally, I don't care if they give the Civilian Corps their own bloody theme song,  they do not have command authority.  Can they be in charge of military members?  Sure - but they cannot simply "take charge" of military members based on their "authority" as GS-13's.

Getting back to topic.  CAP can do it's job w/o grade because they do their job despite grade.  We're closer to civilians than anything else.  We obey others based on their position (commander, project officer, IC) not based on their grade.  Wearing grade just muddies the waters when dealing with those who equate the oak leaves or bars with inherant authority.