Art vs. science of time in grade

[UH60guy]

I'm new to this Professional Development Officer stuff as the CDS, and there's not a squadron PDO for me to train under. I would like to hear some thoughts on how time in grade is applied with regard to Flight Officer promotions, with an eye for helping me keep my CC and myself out of trouble.

We have a few of our Senior Members that show up maybe once a month. Normally that hasn't been my big problem, but two weeks ago, one shows up asking about his promotion. I haven't seen this guy in about two months, but he's right- he met all the requirements, and the time in grade window was met for FO. He also mentioned had he made FO at the right time, he would also meet the TIG requirements for TFO.

But here's the rub where I'm curious on how this is applied. Is this more of a "science" where the requirements get applied without discrimination? Or do we apply the "art" and use judgement? Is X months time in grade usually interpreted as X quality months where you're actively participating? I've seen him maybe for ten weekly meetings during the last 9 months, how does that affect time in grade on his way to FO and TFO? He's requesting us to back date the date of promotion to FO and TFO (to exactly when he met the TIS requirement) because based on what timeline he should have been on, he would be eligible to make 1st Lt faster after he's 21.

I understand the letter of CAPR 35-5 paragraph 7-4- he meets the requirements. I also understand that he hasn't really participated much during the nine months in question for time in grades. What kind of leeway do we have on this? My main concern is looking after my CC- I don't want him to get his wrist smacked for either sitting on a promotion or pushing one up for someone too early. I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing- but I'm too new to CAP to make a good recommendation to my CC based on what I've seen in the past.

I guess where I'm running into confusion is where I'm stumbling through CAPR 35-5 para 7-4 by myself without a PDO to guide my reading. There's not a lot required of a FO/TFO other than to "be occupying positions of supervision or leadership within the unit." He's certainly assigned and "occupying" the position, but not much beyond that (though he does state his enthusiasm for doing more with it). I see some stuff in there about promotion boards or duty performance, but it doesn't help that the promotions section of 35-5 states it's not applicable to Flight Officer grades.

[EMT-83]

This isn't a TIG issue. The question is does this guy deserve a promotion?

This is why units are required to have a promotion board; to review these matters and make recommendations to the commander.

[FW]

^ Yep.  Duty performance does matter when considering any promotion.  And, when the member becomes 21, their grade converts to either 2LT, 1LT, or CAPT.  These promotions should be taken seriously. 

This "science" is practiced with the skill of an artist.... :angel:

[JeffDG]

The issue here is that the Flight Officer promotions section does not include the "Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended." clause that exists for the over 21 grades.

Looking at the reg, the only discretion I see is the "Individuals recommended for promotion to flight officer grade must be occupying positions of supervision or leadership within the unit."

[Майор Хаткевич]

FOs should be actively working. If he is there once a month and sometimes less.. .

[UH60guy]

And there's my problem. I know he *should* be working, but to be overly technical, the wording just says he has to "occupy" the position.

I guess that could be solved with a removal from his eServices assigned position until he comes more often to do it, but doesn't change the history that he "occupied" it for about a year.

[Майор Хаткевич]

FOs aren't tracked in eservices. Occupy implies doing the job.

[JeffDG]

FOs aren't tracked in eservices. Occupy implies doing the job.

No, "performing" would imply doing the job.  Occupying implies mere appointment.

That said, it does not say that the person must occupy the position for a year or whatever the TIG is.  It states that the person must occupy the position at the time of promotion.  So, regardless of how long they've been in the job, you could unassign them, and that would be grounds to not promote.

[coudano]

The times in the reg are part of the minimum requirements for promotion eligibility.

They are not necessarily the -only- factors one should consider in giving a promotion.

[JeffDG]

The times in the reg are part of the minimum requirements for promotion eligibility.

They are not necessarily the -only- factors one should consider in giving a promotion.

And the other factors are also in the reg, none of which provide a lot of discretion to the commander when it comes to FO promotions.

[UH60guy]

They are not necessarily the -only- factors one should consider in giving a promotion.

Exactly. I agree 100%. However, I just want to make sure my CC is covered regardless of what I do. Doubt it would happen, but if we sit on the promotion because "he's not ready but he meets all requirements" and the SM complains to higher, what grounds do we have to stand on?

Or is this a situation of "I don't necessarily like it, but my hands are tied" because the FO promotions seem to not have the duty performance requirements the usual officer promotions have?

FOs aren't tracked in eservices. Occupy implies doing the job.

If it helps to clarify, without going into someone's personal info, he's assigned to two squadron level staff assistant duty positions in eServices as of January.

[EMT-83]

[Snip]...  I just want to make sure my CC is covered regardless of what I do. Doubt it would happen, but if we sit on the promotion because "he's not ready but he meets all requirements" and the SM complains to higher, what grounds do we have to stand on?

That's why it's important to apply the regulations consistently and keep documentation. Promotions aren't automatic, and as long as everyone is held to the same standard, you will have no issues. If the member complains upstream, the commander should have documented the specific reason for denial and hopefully outlined a plan to resolve the problem.

[RiverAux]

If he is not really doing the work in the positions he occupies, then I would be fine with holding off the promotion until he is -- just explain it to him. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I rolled over to SM before my 21st. Was told that since I'm not local to participate and hold down a duty assignment, the regs forbid the appointment. If you want to play it safe, give him the TFO, but explain that going forward he will need to DO the work, or the position gets pulled and he's SOL.

[UH60guy]

Thanks everyone for your input, I really appreciated hearing the various consideratons. I'm not sure which way it will go, but I think this all can help me frame my discussion with the commander (and the SM if he comes), and together we can figure out a way forward.

[Eclipse]

Ask him what his most important accomplishments are in regards to the positions he has "occupied", and what his plans are
for the increased responsibility of higher grade.

From experience I can tell you that it is not uncommon for promotions to be denied because of lack of participation.  I've had more then
a few bounced by wing or region because a member met the minimums but hasn't bothered to show up for a year.

[davedove]

Be sure to read the whole regulation.  CAPR 35-5, 7-1 states:

This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21.

That means all the criteria for promotion to officer grade would also apply, except for the age minimum.  That would include 2-1 a.:

Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

No one is entitled to be promoted.  You don't get automatically promoted just because you did X, Y, and Z.  It is all in the judgement of the approving authority, in this case the Squadron Commander.

[ZigZag911]

I think we need to remember that the key concept is that by meeting basic requirements, a member becomes eligible for promotion.

In the final analysis, it is always a matter of the commander's judgement, applied according to regulations.

Except in the case of certain senior leadership positions, such as wing CC, promotion is never automatic...no one is entitled to it!

[Archer]

Be sure to read the whole regulation.  CAPR 35-5, 7-1 states:

This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21.

That means all the criteria for promotion to officer grade would also apply, except for the age minimum.  That would include 2-1 a.:

Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

No one is entitled to be promoted.  You don't get automatically promoted just because you did X, Y, and Z.  It is all in the judgement of the approving authority, in this case the Squadron Commander.

Quoted for intense truth.

[Private Investigator]

Interesting subject and good points taken.

Just wanted to put my 5 cents in. Every Unit should have a promotion Board. Because I can understand Lieutenants, i.e. new members still learning about CAP because they have not had SLS, CLC or RSC but a Captain and a Major who alledgely completed Level IV should have a clue on what is going on.