Idea: 2 Years of College for all CAP Officers

[Chappie]

And one final thing... I'd draw your attention to CAPR265-1 Section B (7) Moral Leadership Officer Appointment a) (1) The applicant has 60 hours of study beyond the High School Diploma

Why is it okay for MLOs & not for everyone else? Why would you ask an MLO to meet that standard & not ask it of the DCC or Sq CC? What about an IC that has to do some serious upper level thought with lives on the line? No one's saying you need it for GTL, to be an ES officer, or Comm, an MP/MO... you can do 90% of CAP postions w/o having skill one as an officer, but there's a few where you want an officer tehre or an NCO with 10 years experience that's learned to lead in the CAP or military school of hard knocks.

I believe the rationale behind that requirement for MLOs, is that a Moral Leadership Officer is appointed by the Chaplain Service after approval by the squadron commander (Form 2a). CAP Chaplains are required to have a minimum of an accredited Bachelors and 5 years of pastoral experience for their appointment.   MLOs are an integral part of the Chaplain Service.

[JamesG5223]

Thanks, Lt Col Garlough.  This helps put the budget issue in perspective. 

Sir, what do you think about Major Kachenmeister's idea of keeping the NCO program the way it is but allowing civilians to join at AB and be able to go up to SrA?  This would allow those officers who join primarily to drive cadets around and do other jobs most junior enlisteds to do, or join to support a cadet in the program, to do so without being 'extra baggage' in the squadron officer corps. 

Also, Maj Caralles suggested that there be some sort of way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP.  Do you envision a cost-effective way to do this?

I respectfully disagree with Major Kachenmeister's idea of keeping the NCO program the way it is while allowing civilians to join at AB and be able to go up to SrA.  IMO, that proposal would artificially create a class of people in CAP that would really not be allowed to fully experience the program.  I cannot endorse that.

That said however, I believe an NCO corps in CAP is an interesting idea (and in that the Major and I agree).  Basing officer appointment on requirements closer to the military is an idea that has been around a long time.  The only way I see this working however, is with development of a meaningful program for NCO's that mirrors the current officer program in CAP.  We'd need a stepped progression, educational milestones, leadership and practical schooling and awards to match.  Like I said before, offer the member a robust program.

Many of these proposals seem to forget that the adults are not just in CAP to support cadets or fly SAR.  There are many-many members who are in CAP for their own reasons; camaraderie, volunteer service, get away from the spouse once a week, etc.,  Thus, any NCO program must stand on its own merits, not just be an excuse to bring CAP closer to a military model for grade and advancement.

I have not decided yet how I fall on the issue (NCO program or keep things the way they are).  However if we do institute an NCO program, I would argue that we keep the flight officer program as a place to put pilots who don't meet the officer requirements (whatever those end up being).

As for a way for military NCOs who join CAP as NCOs to be able to promote through the NCO grades within CAP, I would parallel the current military education credit program as it exists today for the new NCO program.  If a former USAF NCO joined CAP, they should certainly come into CAP at equivalent grade and get credit for their military schooling, but they should still have to complete the CAP specific schools and courses to earn the CAP NCO milestone awards, just like the officers do now.

The cost of any such program will be considerable because in essence we are talking about a complete redesign of the CAP adult program, from the ground up.  Like I said, I am not fully committed one way or another.  The analysis that I'd like to see first would be a cost-benefit analysis that examines not only why CAP should do this, but what practical benefit it would offer the program.

[JamesG5223]

I project the minimum cost to CAP to implement a meaningful adult NCO program at $750,000 and probably more.  Of course, this is amortized over a period of time, but still, it would represent a significant cost to CAP.

That's quite a SWAG, if I've ever seen one.

Glad you think so.  LOL

Do some higher math yourself.  Salaries of 5-10 personnel at National who are tasked with development of this program (basically redevelopment of the entire adult program) as a full-time project for a year or more.  Coordination with other departments in CAP and their person-hour expenses in doing so.

Additional expenses include printing, creation of new awards (art), new insignia, educational materials for the units, training for units, etc. 

I believe my "SAWG" figure is very conservative.

[JamesG5223]

I admire the forethought and the vigor of those that want to make a CAP officer (or maybe NCOs too) virtually identically to his/her Geneva Conventions-abiding model from the Armed Forces.  I really do!  But when we remove the heartstrings, does anybody really think that AAs/ASs or higher will ever become a requirement for a volunteer in a volunteer gig to do something more than wash airplanes or march around parking lots?

Well sir, SDF's are volunteer organizations (and military, no less) and (at least the NM SDF) requires all officers to have at least 2 years of college before commissioning.  They do a lot more than wash airplanes and march around parking lots.  A good example can be found at: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/airsupport1.htm

They also get paid for their efforts.  My last CAP paycheck had some pretty big negative numbers on it.

[JamesG5223]

My point is you are attacking the wrong problem.

The problem is not that the moron was able to join and start training to be an officer....but that some commander promoted him.

That is what needs to be fixed.  Don't cut off a large pool of capable officers because some commander's can't be trusted to make the right decision.

Challenge for the list:

Jr. Wannabe joins CAP and completes all the training requirements to achieve a step up in grade.  Goes to all the schools, passes all the tests, attends all the meetings.  What grounds do we have under the regulations as they exist now to deny the promotion?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Lt Col Garlough:

We already have a class of CAP member such as you describe in you earlier post.  We have the Cadet Sponsor Members, who can't wear the AF uniform, and have no rank.  The "Enlisted" program I proposed simply expands somewhat on that existing program.

[lordmonar]

My point is you are attacking the wrong problem.

The problem is not that the moron was able to join and start training to be an officer....but that some commander promoted him.

That is what needs to be fixed.  Don't cut off a large pool of capable officers because some commander's can't be trusted to make the right decision.

Challenge for the list:

Jr. Wannabe joins CAP and completes all the training requirements to achieve a step up in grade.  Goes to all the schools, passes all the tests, attends all the meetings.  What grounds do we have under the regulations as they exist now to deny the promotion?

e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.

a. The immediate superior of the individual being recommended for promotion will ensure that the member meets the minimum eligibility criteria outlined in 6 above and, in addition, is qualified under the criteria of one of the following promotion methods outlined in section B, C, D, or E:

You don't just get promoted because you do your time and go to class.  You have to be recommended by unit commander or immediate superior.  It is their job to stop the morons and imbeciles.

[DNall]

Let me slow this down for a second. I think a lot of people are looking at end results & not understanding how we got there or why. Just take a minute to follow the logic with me, this is important.

Problem:
CAP's traditional missions are going away. That's due to technology on one hand & NIMS on the other. Let's talk about NIMS. There's an ICS training schedule fo dif positions that's required just to be in the AO. Then you have to bring a specialized skill set certified as meeting a set of requirements they define. Those involve some very serious total committment training that CAP doesn't remotely approach. until CAP gets in line with this we're going to increasingly be shut out of missions & but off from funding. When we decide to do this, a member won't be able to maintain currency in multiple unrelated specialties (aircrew & GT), and won't have time for anything but focusing on that one thing. Such a person meets the definition of what enlisted do in the military - subject matter experts, small unit leaders based on experience & proven skills, focused on their tactical job & the greater mission rather than the big picture long view.

Secondly, CAP has traditionally had a bad leadership gap that's harmed us at every turn & prevented the kind of evolution that's needed now. We need to create a pool of leaders grown in house that WE equip & develop thru each stage to lead & manage CAP. Those people need to bring a much greater capability at local unit mgmt, but they also need to be able to step up to mission leadership roles. By becoming NIMS compliant & typed we'll be in position to place our branch directors, section chiefs, & ICs in a joint-staff commanding tens to hundreds of agencies full of professional responders who have to be led by people that are not just subject matter experts, but who can bring the talents of officership & be viewed as legitimate.

Third, in order to survive we must evolve to be more meaningful to the AF. The reason we do SaR is to save them money & manpower that can be turned to combat power. That we get to potentially save people is completely bonus. Now with that in decline & with other critical areas on the rise in the AF, and CAP being recommended for jobs we're not able to do... we have to gain the trust of AF & Congress. If they think of us as hobbiest out volunteering to help out in a pinch (ie the concept under which CAP was founded), then we're out of business. We have to show them that the worst among us deserves enough of their trust to be the line of defense that prevents nukes from coming in the US say, or the lead go-to federal resource in things like air disaster assesment/SaR/etc. We also have to step up to help them directly, be that with augmentation and/or things like the cyber mission at 8th AF. The range of things CAP has been talked about is quite wide, but the Silly Air Patrol is not allowed to do such things. The professional newly transformed AFAux in which AF people see folks nearly on par with themselves stand in for airmen, DoD civilians, & contractors for free, so that money can be turned to combat power... it's enough to get back to a central role in the AF mission.

So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?

Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.

Professional development... We have to develop the leadership abilities to do the jobs we're seeking to step to, we have to gain the trust over time to step to those jobs, and we have to produce people base on what WE teach them that can lead our organization at all levels. That requires legit officers. Training them costs money, time, & effort. And it only requires 20-25% of our active adult members (if you count cadets, it's 8-12%). It has to be challenging academically, on par w/ real OTS, if we want AF people to see these folks as legit & able to lead in critical missions up to & including national security. Producing graduates at that level means most people aren't going to make it. We don't need or want to waste time on people that can't get thru or that won't be good for us when they get thru. That means looking at objective & subjective factors that help us determine who's worth the risk. Education is one of few objective factors we can look at. That doesn't mean it outweighs the subjective, just that a standard is set & you have to really come with a special candidate to bypass it.

Attaining those results means 75-80% of people aren't going to do it - mostly they won't want to be officers, and who would blame them, but also many will not be able to make it thru the traininig & a small number would not be qualified enough for us to take a chance on them. These people go to the enlisted side where they focus on their chosen sub-specialty & the propfessional development they get is aimed at supporting growth as a small unit leader inside that specialty.

Costs:
These would be actually quite low.

The NCO program I put out there is a redeveloped version of the current adult program. ALS/NCOA/SNCOA from AFIADL are put on a table next to SLS/CLC/RSC/NSC. AF specific material (managing for WAPS & the like) is cut, CAP officer specific material is cut on the other end. results slammed together to produce CAP ALS, NCOA, SNCOA. That's all zero cost, you're using exisitng full-time personnel & volunteer cmtes in consultation w/ AF & retied NCOs. The cost comes in delivery. AFIADL is a possiblity. Another is a DVD delivered course like is being sent to members for level I now, yet another is the SLS/CLC format possibly with pre-attendance online modules. None of these is particularly expensive; long-term I favor the SLS/CLC w/ pre-mods myself as most members will be enlisted.

The officer side is a bit more costly, but less so than you think. It involves development of two courses: AuxOTS & Officer Basic Course. OTS is the content intensive course. It leans heavily on AU/CCs wide open offer of help to tap AFOATS for a joint cmte to take everything from real OTS that's not AF specific & put it in the CAP course at AF standards, then to replace the other w/ CAP specific material that makes the end course equally challenging. The AF has offered that help, it costs us very little to take advantage of it. Then delivery occurs via DVD/online modules & tests in conjunction with a mentor. That item cost is about 10 bucks & gets passed to the candidate.

The actual & limited development/production costs in both cases run about 75k total & CAP has to eat that. Easily justified to AF in the budget if asked for in advance.

And one final thing... I'd draw your attention to CAPR265-1 Section B (7) Moral Leadership Officer Appointment a) (1) The applicant has 60 hours of study beyond the High School Diploma

Why is it okay for MLOs & not for everyone else? Why would you ask an MLO to meet that standard & not ask it of the DCC or Sq CC? What about an IC that has to do some serious upper level thought with lives on the line? No one's saying you need it for GTL, to be an ES officer, or Comm, an MP/MO... you can do 90% of CAP postions w/o having skill one as an officer, but there's a few where you want an officer tehre or an NCO with 10 years experience that's learned to lead in the CAP or military school of hard knocks.

I believe the rationale behind that requirement for MLOs, is that a Moral Leadership Officer is appointed by the Chaplain Service after approval by the squadron commander (Form 2a). CAP Chaplains are required to have a minimum of an accredited Bachelors and 5 years of pastoral experience for their appointment.   MLOs are an integral part of the Chaplain Service.

Due respect, but that's no answer. It's required because they're confirmed by the Chap service? Okay, what's that got to do with it? It's required cause you can't have morons leading higher level thought discussions w/ kids on theoretical character. Not real hard to see how that relates to the maybe 3 officer positions that need filled in a Sq.


Finally, to the point that former NCOs, & the current officers we produce once they've had significant experience, can run a local unit of 30. Well sure they can, that's what NCOs do. That's also a flight in the real world. Put 3-5 of those together in what you'd think of now as a mini-Gp (we'll call that a Sq) and you need 3 company grade officers to run it w/a combined staff of NCO experts. You need those skilled people specializing in leadership & mgmt more than tech fields. You need them to cut their teeth in Sq Mgmt over a few years & then move up to Gp/Wg staff & beyond, being promoted based on merit along the way.

[ZigZag911]

So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?

Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.

I think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.

[Guardrail]

I think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.

What about the NEC?  Aren't they the same way too?

[JamesG5223]

Let me slow this down for a second.  [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.

You make some good points.  However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less.  You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF.  With respect, you're going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.

What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities?  A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away.  Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?

After all, isn't what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets?  These are the backbone of our program.  Not whether we wear stripes or stars.

[lordmonar]

Let me slow this down for a second.  [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.

You make some good points.  However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less.  You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF.  With respect, you're going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.

What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities?  A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away.  Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?

After all, isn't what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets?  These are the backbone of our program.  Not whether we wear stripes or stars.

Thank Gods!  There is at least one other person out there that gets it!  Thanks Col!

[DNall]

So that's where we HAVE to get. Now how to get there?

Solutions:
Governance... Power has already been removed from the corporate structure, but they are defered & dlegated to as the people with the pulse of the membership - you ever in your life thought of teh NB in those terms? The BoG is in charge. The concensus is that they act like it & below them be a straight line military chain of command made of CAP officers slected or at least confirmed by BoG.

I think the BOG views itself as an oversight body...even if, on paper, they're empowered to exercise direct command, I get the impression that as a group, they don't want to involve themselves in CAP's day to day business.

I would agree & don't propose changing that. The NB doesn't run day-to-day either. The paid staff does, and the individual Wg/Reg/Nat officers do - NOT as members of the NB or NEC, but as part of a supposedly military chain of command. That just doesn't work in practice cause there's a conflict of interest. I think the BoG is & should stay an oversight body, the day to day should be run by NHQ & Nat-Wg officers, basically executing all the same powers that NB does now. at whatever echelon level it gets delegated to.

Let me slow this down for a second.  [Long post deleted, please refer to it above if necessary.

You make some good points.  However, as I read your whole post the number one reaction I have is that you're proposing that we become the USAF, nothing less.  You even state that we need to change ourselves to be of more use to the AF.  With respect, you’re going to have a hard time maintaining AF standards with unpaid volunteers.

What about focusing on becoming more useful to our communities?  A great number of CAP units thrive in communities where there is no AF presence or the nearest AF base is six hours away.  Why not put less emphasis on becoming the AF and more on training to be of service in our local communities, where it counts?

After all, isn’t what counts most the benefit we provide the local community and the work we do with the cadets?  These are the backbone of our program.  Not whether we wear stripes or stars.

I'm glad you raise that point cause it's important to understand this. I'd start by saying the military fighting wars overseas is a service to the community, state, & nation. I'd then tell you that when CAP runs AFAM SaR/DR/CN/HLD/etc that each of those is in support of our community, state, & nation. I'd mroe specifically tell you that SaR/DR are not really AF missions, but belong to state/local & AF funds them as a community service. Beyond that, Congress & AF don't pay for us so we can go work for anyone in need. They pay for us to work for the federal govt & are tolerant of us helping others in our spare time just so it doesn't de-prioritize or detract from our federal capabilities. If you don't keep sight of that priority set then you'll find yourself very quickly with no money to pay for all these planes, radios, vehicles, training, gas, etc.

The cadet program was created & exists today to be of service to the AF. We're not suppose to push them into anything, but rather givbe them the opportunity to explore options & give them skill sets of use in the military, but make no mistake that we exist today because the AF sees that program as a pipeline into their service. They view AE much the same way, as producing candidates or public support for budgets. I said alreay ES is about saving money/manpower to shift into combat power right? That's what CAP is about & always has been about.

Feel free to look at state/local though. you'll find in some places that there's a little bit to be done there, in other's the state is pretty well off of their own accord & not only can do the mission better than you w/ their own reasources but probably doesn't want you interefereing with their incedents or DHS funding lines. Say they do want your help though, but they can't pay to to keep up however many planes there are in your wing or the amount of training money you get each year. How are you going to keep working for them long-term w/o the AF subsidizing it?

Ultimately ge who pays the most money gets our loyalty. The AF every single year pays four times more than all member dues, corporate sponsorships, grants, state/local missions, donations, & bake sales combined. They expect a big return on their investment or they'll cut back or stop the investment. You can focus on local communities, play boy scout w/ plane, but it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that ultimately lead to no more CAP.

We were created after the war to be of service to the AF. The only way we stay alive is to continue & expand that. We're going obselete right now as we look at ELT tech & NIMS taking away our traditional front line ES missions. We have to adapt to stay relavent. Staying relavent to the AF & Congress means helping the AF serve the community, state, & nation. Then maybe after the fact if we're sitting around in the right place at the right time w/ the right gear & nothing to do THEN we might be able to help out a few other limit folks on limit missions within strict rules. That's the CAP you joined, and that isn't going to change. The math just doesn't work any other way.

[DNall]

oh sorry, and far as being the AF. That's not what's being proposed. You need a real degree & face much stiffer competitive slection, including PT & an AFOQT, plus the subjective aspect to be a real AF officer. 60hrs, a couple rec letters, an interview & selection board, then spread the academic end of 90 day OTS to a year of modules done in conjunction w/ a mentor... that's a LONG way from being an AF officer. It's just as close as we can reasonablly get, and it's a comfortable medium that lets mil & emer responders look at us & see by their own criteria that we're legitimate & skilled enough to work in their world, even if that at times means over some of their people as appropriate (primarily in ICS).

Can volunteers do this? Well probably not if they keep thinking of themselves as just community volunteers, but let me point out two examples. First is ACA. They are just a cadet program & not formally tied to any branch of service (but strong informal connections). The OCS they require is two weeks in-res hardcore trng, a year of intense self-study, & two more weeks at the end, at a cost of several thousand to the candidate. That's much more strenuous & time consuming than what I'm asking & they don't even have an ES mission or federal backing. The other example I'd give you are the many SDFs around the country. People like to point out the differences, but too quickly look past the similiarities. Some get paid on state active duty, most do not. That's only when deployed to a disaster or something though, never for monthly drill or other training. Like CGAux, SDFs train in MOS/AFSC fields & become certified to stand in for National Guard personnel inside the state, and they work from the outside to do other jobs in support of the guard units. The requirements they have vary a lot from state to state, but for the most part are 60hrs college, a highly selective process, & state level OCS - meaning harder than what I propose. What we're talking about this basically making CAP similiar, not the same, but closer than it is now, to an SDF for the federal AF.

Can volunteers do it? Well unpaid professionals can, & they're doing it very successfuly in programs with many fewer advantages than CAP brings to the table. I know there's some symantics involved there, but attitude is everything in this. When there's no law that forces you to behave like the reserves, but you choose to do so anyway... yeah it can work, and it's jus tnot that many people we're asking this of.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dennis:

I agree with almost everything you say.

But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.

Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month.  That's good.  I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.

Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.

The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.

Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.

[ZigZag911]

Dennis:

I agree with almost everything you say.

But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.

Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month.  That's good.  I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.

Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.

The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.

Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.

If you make the whole thing residential you're going to have problems, I think.....a mix of residential, single day classes, and home/internet study would be better.

[DNall]

Dennis:

I agree with almost everything you say.

But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.

Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month.  That's good.  I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.

Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.

The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.

Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.

I know I know. What I got is trying to tailor to the unique situation of CAP members. I know it doesn't address the intrensic subjective advantages of an in-res course. You see that same kind of dynamic w/ RSC/NSC & even COS to an extent. However, all commissioning program in the military  (OTS. OCS, Acad, ROTC) are fairly limited to theory. It's the Officer Basic Course where you turn that theory into the mission-centric warrior attitude, practical application of the theory you learned to the real world.

Now, I'm not sure how to proceed on this. I think the academic content proposed in my course (real OTS -AF specific material +CAP specific material) is very important. I do also think it's important to have the elements you're talking about. I think my program with the addition of 2-4 wknds over the year accomplishes what you're looking for. Some of the networking can also happen online in a forum devoted to students & instructors/mentors.

It's also worth considering doing that element at an officer basic course. I have to check agian but the academic portion of the AF ASBC my actually be up at AFIADL. This is stuff has to be worked out in the details.

Point here though is should we consider education as a factor in selecting officer candidates & to what extent should it be a gatekeeping factor to limit mentally deficient individuals from entering the training & wasting our limited resources.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dennis:

I agree with almost everything you say.

But OTS has to have at least an in-resident element.

Iowa's is 6-months long, conducted 1 weekend per month.  That's good.  I'm putting one together in FL that is planned for 3 months, we'll see how good that is.

Without an in-resident phase, you cannot teach collective tasks such as D&C, nor do you have the intensity of training we are seeking.

The bonding of the class, and the networking opportunities are also not insignificant advantages.

Home study, net-based or DVD-based instruction can and should augment, but cannot replace, in-resident training.

If you make the whole thing residential you're going to have problems, I think.....a mix of residential, single day classes, and home/internet study would be better.

Personally, I think Iowa's is a bit long.  I think 3 months is about right, conducted in 3 weekend drills in consecutive months.  Weekend 1: beast, lots of D&C, GES qualification, BCUT, e-services.  Weekend 2:  SLS.  Weekend 3:  Flight operations (O-flights/1 hr prep for Fm 5 for pilots), health and fitness, family support, graduation.  You can add OPSEC, and some other web-based home study stuff, and get them started on AFIADL-13.

[Major_Chuck]

My vote is no.  Our military grades carry no weight outside of our organization and besides that, with over 18 years of supervisory and management experience (military and civilian) with no degree why should I get a degree just to be a CAP officer?

[aveighter]

Pretty much because of what you said yourself.  Our rank structure carries little weight outside of the organization and not much more within it.  Almost all professional level operations whether military or civilian require some level of defined academic achievement for it's leadership structure.  If we wish to bring CAP to a level comparable to the many agencies it desires to do business with and deepen the relationship with those we already work with, why shouldn't we strive to reach some level of parity?