NCO promotions and appointment for non-prior service members.

[afgeo4]

No, this isn't another one of "those" threads.

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that in the NEC agenda notes, the NCO topic is discussed and a decision was made to research the concept of creating an NCO career track with promotions and including non-prior members to be eligible to become NCOs.

I guess sometimes NHQ does hear us. I am glad. Hopefully they will allow current officers to switch to NCO grades so I can put my chevrons back on.

[Eclipse]

If you're eligible for NCO grade, you could switch back anytime you want.

As to allowing non-current / prior military to become NCOs?  Not without  an entire program, including different professional development and specific / different duties.

[sandman]

If you're eligible for NCO grade, you could switch back anytime you want.

True, but you missed point George was making. I wouldn't mind wearing my NCO stripes either. However, I would like to have an incentive to do so such as career progression marked by promotions. I'm with George on this.

As to allowing non-current / prior military to become NCOs?  Not without  an entire program, including different professional development and specific / different duties.

There is that. Maybe that is why the NEC is looking at it again. Best of luck NEC, I hope you can pull it off and come up with a viable NCO program!

/r

LT

[Hawk200]

If you're eligible for NCO grade, you could switch back anytime you want.

I don't have any problem with this, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more. At present, if a person is an NCO, you know they've been there and done that.

As to allowing non-current / prior military to become NCOs?  Not without  an entire program, including different professional development and specific / different duties.

If there is a full progression starting from Airman Basic, then going up each rank, then I have less of an issue. If it's a case of someone going from Senior Member straight to Staff Sergeant, there is a serious problem.

Most branches have something to the effect of "I am an NCO, noone is more profesional than I". Those who achieve the rank spent their time doing the details and learning the leadership qualities, it's a development. "Instant" NCO's is a really bad idea.

[O-Rex]

If you're eligible for NCO grade, you could switch back anytime you want.

I don't have any problem with this, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more. At present, if a person is an NCO, you know they've been there and done that.

As to allowing non-current / prior military to become NCOs?  Not without  an entire program, including different professional development and specific / different duties.

If there is a full progression starting from Airman Basic, then going up each rank, then I have less of an issue. If it's a case of someone going from Senior Member straight to Staff Sergeant, there is a serious problem.

Most branches have something to the effect of "I am an NCO, noone is more profesional than I". Those who achieve the rank spent their time doing the details and learning the leadership qualities, it's a development. "Instant" NCO's is a really bad idea.

If I recall, CAP 'enlisted' ranks start at a three-stripe sergeant (which funny enough, hasn't existed in USAF for years.)  From an incentive standpoint, the prospect of being a 45 year-old Airman Basic may not appeal to some....

No, I'd say keep a new member as SM until they decide what they want to do.

[Hawk200]

If I recall, CAP 'enlisted' ranks start at a three-stripe sergeant (which funny enough, hasn't existed in USAF for years.) 

I was wondering, so I looked in 35-5 (Aug 2004). It still shows sergeant as a rank.

Kinda presents an issue, since the nearest insignia to wear is the standard three stripes for Senior Airman. If such people interacted with the military, they're going to be considered and addressed as "Senior Airman".

If we had an enlisted program starting from the bottom going up, we should just realign our ranks to the Air Force's, and call it what they do.

[Tim Medeiros]

I think the main reason why CAP calls it a Sergeant is because E-4 for other services is an NCO, whereas for the AF it is not.  Makes sense to me, though YMMV

[O-Rex]

More importantly, in the Cadet world, you expect your seniors, ANY senior to be able to lend some adult supervision and some degree of leadership (?)

So that may be an explanation of why no 'lower-enlisted' grades for seniors.

Makes sense (in theory, anyway...)

[Hawk200]

I think the main reason why CAP calls it a Sergeant is because E-4 for other services is an NCO, whereas for the AF it is not.  Makes sense to me, though YMMV

I'm an E-4 in an Army component, and I'm not an NCO.

There is an E-4 NCO rank in the Army, but not everyone would be able to get it. It's usually limited to combat arms related branches. In Aviation, I'm not even eligible.

[RickFranz]

If I recall, CAP 'enlisted' ranks start at a three-stripe sergeant (which funny enough, hasn't existed in USAF for years.) 

I was wondering, so I looked in 35-5 (Aug 2004). It still shows sergeant as a rank.

Kinda presents an issue, since the nearest insignia to wear is the standard three stripes for Senior Airman. If such people interacted with the military, they're going to be considered and addressed as "Senior Airman".

If we had an enlisted program starting from the bottom going up, we should just realign our ranks to the Air Force's, and call it what they do.

I think it might throw some of the younger AF folks, but we throw them a curve ball with the flight officer ranks anyway, so why not Sgt..  The AF changed the NCO status for an E-4 (Sgt now SrA) back in the 1990's however the Navy and parts of the Army still think of E-4 as an NCO.

[tkelley004]

No, this isn't another one of "those" threads.

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that in the NEC agenda notes, the NCO topic is discussed and a decision was made to research the concept of creating an NCO career track with promotions and including non-prior members to be eligible to become NCOs.

I guess sometimes NHQ does hear us. I am glad. Hopefully they will allow current officers to switch to NCO grades so I can put my chevrons back on.

Not unless they change the officer program.. so if you put your chevrons back on are you going to salute and call "sir" a 21 year old, with 6 months in CAP and completion of level one....

That is what you would have to do....  (I am a active duty SMSgt By the way....)

[RickFranz]

Then there is the question of the 20 year E8 or E9 that comes from something other than the AF with no CAP background, how do you treat them?  Come on in here is your SMSgt or CMSgt now go forth.  I think without some short of "This is the way we do it here" class, we would find ourselfs in the same sorta mess that I been reading about on another thread here about AF Officers coming into CAP.

[Stonewall]

I think without some short of "This is the way we do it here" class, we would find ourselfs in the same sorta mess that I been reading about on another thread here about AF Officers coming into CAP.

Although lacking, every member gets Level I, and later, SLS/CLC which is the "this is the way we do it here" class.

LEVEL I:

Level One
Welcome to your first step in professional development as a CAP member! 

Level One provides you with the foundations of Civil Air Patrol missions, policies and opportunities for service. Talk with your mentor or commander if you have any questions about Level One.

To complete Level One of Civil Air Patrol's professional development program, you will need to complete the following (by clicking some of these links, you will be leaving the *.gov domain):

     a. The CAP Foundations Course - Details below.

     b. Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT) - Available online only at e-Services (details below).

     c. Online Operations Security (OPSEC) Awareness Training - Available online only at https://tests.cap.af.mil/opsec (details below).

[Trung Si Ma]

Not unless they change the officer program.. so if you put your chevrons back on are you going to salute and call "sir" a 21 year old, with 6 months in CAP and completion of level one....

I was going to make a smart a$$ comment about West Pointers and ROTC kids, but I'll let you use your imagination.

[mikeylikey]

Not unless they change the officer program.. so if you put your chevrons back on are you going to salute and call "sir" a 21 year old, with 6 months in CAP and completion of level one....

That is what you would have to do....  (I am a active duty SMSgt By the way....)

So you don't salute the 21 and 22 year old Air Force 2nd Lt's??  Being Active Duty and all??

If we are going to have CAP NCO's, I hope they can support the CAP program and part of that program is having 21 year old CAP Officers.  So if you can't get over basic customs and courtesies as a "seasoned" SNCO, you would be a terrible role model for the Cadets. 

I can't believe a comment like that came out of someone who should already being showing proper respect to Officers of the 20 year old age group. 

[Dragoon]

I think his point is that our standards for 2d Lt, compared to the real military are... how gentlhy can I put this....a crock.

Put in that context, his gentle warning about what it would mean to return to CAP NCO ranks is not really out of line.  If you choose to be a NCO, you will be forced to render courtesies to folks who, unlike real military officers, have next to zero training AND a high likelihood of never actually being in charge of another human being.  Ever.

I'm just sayin'.

[Eclipse]

A salient point, and the reason why we should stop this talk about reinstituting "enlisted" grades in CAP.

We're not talking about maintaining a semblance of C&C, we're talking about the realities of volunteers and
being human.

In the MC$, being an NCO means a lot of specific things, points to specific levels of duties and responsibilities, and generally commands a special level of respect.

In CAP it generally means you don't understand the program.

[lordmonar]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

The duties of a CAP NCO would be to conduct "military" training to the Officers and Cadets.  They would be the Uniform Nazis and the Customs and Courtesies Police and the Drill Masters.

We will have to include these skills as part of ALL SM training.  I.e. all officers will have to pass the Curry Ribbon Drill test for Level II.

Progression for the NCO's will be as such.

New guy who decides to go NCO/prior enlisted any service.  Wear the SrA stripe upon completing Level I.

Technician rating will be to complete the Wright Brothers leadership and drill test (or something similar).

This rates them a SSgt after an appropriate TIG.

Senior rating will be complete level II and pass a comprehensive drill test, conduct training classes...that sort of thing...this gets them TSgt.

Master rating will be complete Level III more instructing and a major serious drill exam.

SMSgt will only be MASTER Rated NCOs at the group level.
CMSgts will only be MASTER Rated NCOs at the wing and above level.

Units will only be authorized one First Sergeant (this is a position) who must be MASTER RATED....no master rated NCOs...no first sergeant.

Groups, wings, regions will be allowed one.....one first sergeant at each level...but there can be multiple SMSgts/CMSgts on their staff.

One....Command Chief at national level.

Prior NCOs can jump up to their current rank up to MSgts.....just as we do with retired 0-6s...retired E-9's must get their Master Rating and serve at the appropriate levels to earn back their rockers.

Notice what I said first.....this should only happen if we also make an strong effort to require all CAP officers to learn a basic level of drill and ceremonies.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of what the program could look like....if you have details....let's hear them.

Flame away.

[Gunner C]

I think his point is that our standards for 2d Lt, compared to the real military are... how gentlhy can I put this....a crock.

Put in that context, his gentle warning about what it would mean to return to CAP NCO ranks is not really out of line.  If you choose to be a NCO, you will be forced to render courtesies to folks who, unlike real military officers, have next to zero training AND a high likelihood of never actually being in charge of another human being.  Ever.

I'm just sayin'.

WIWAC we had several NCOs in my cadet squadron.  Two were AD senior NCOs (MSgts IIRC), on AD airman and one guy who was a bonifide CAP NCO.  They all added an additional quality to the program.  All of our other SMs were officers - all, save two, were active duty.  One was the commander's wife who instructed our AE program and the other was a chaplain (doesn't really count the same as other officers [direct appointment to maj] - good guy, just didn't have any experience w/RM or CAP).

We had the best program I've EVER seen.  I haven't seen anything since that could come close.  Real NCOs, teaching CAP NCOs, kept the standards VERY high.

GC

[Eclipse]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

Since there can be no caste division of "workers" vs. "managers" in volunteer organization, we don't.

Col's will still be emptying the trash cans at unit meetings whether we have NCO's or not.

[lordmonar]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

Since there can be no caste division of "workers" vs. "managers" in volunteer organization, we don't.

Col's will still be emptying the trash cans at unit meetings whether we have NCO's or not.

You missed my point....the NCO's would have a job....just like the Admin Officer, Ops Officer, and Logistics Officer.  His job would to teach the "military side" of CAP....specificly drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, military heritage and traditions.  The would generally fall under/with the Professional Development Officer.

Right now this instance...I agree with you (and I stated in my original post) that there is no need for NCOs.  We could use them in the training role IF.....IF we made such military training mandatory for our officer professional development.

CAP NCOs would not...I SAY AGAIN...would not fulfill the traditional role NCOs have in the real military for the simple fact that we have no airman to train and supervise.

[RickFranz]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

The duties of a CAP NCO would be to conduct "military" training to the Officers and Cadets.  They would be the Uniform Nazis and the Customs and Courtesies Police and the Drill Masters.

We will have to include these skills as part of ALL SM training.  I.e. all officers will have to pass the Curry Ribbon Drill test for Level II.

Progression for the NCO's will be as such.

New guy who decides to go NCO/prior enlisted any service.  Wear the SrA stripe upon completing Level I.

Technician rating will be to complete the Wright Brothers leadership and drill test (or something similar).

This rates them a SSgt after an appropriate TIG.

Senior rating will be complete level II and pass a comprehensive drill test, conduct training classes...that sort of thing...this gets them TSgt.

Master rating will be complete Level III more instructing and a major serious drill exam.

SMSgt will only be MASTER Rated NCOs at the group level.
CMSgts will only be MASTER Rated NCOs at the wing and above level.

Units will only be authorized one First Sergeant (this is a position) who must be MASTER RATED....no master rated NCOs...no first sergeant.

Groups, wings, regions will be allowed one.....one first sergeant at each level...but there can be multiple SMSgts/CMSgts on their staff.

One....Command Chief at national level.

Prior NCOs can jump up to their current rank up to MSgts.....just as we do with retired 0-6s...retired E-9's must get their Master Rating and serve at the appropriate levels to earn back their rockers.

Notice what I said first.....this should only happen if we also make an strong effort to require all CAP officers to learn a basic level of drill and ceremonies.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of what the program could look like....if you have details....let's hear them.

Flame away.

No flame, just a question.  Would this program be like the cadet side where you start at the bottom (Sgt/SrA) and work your way up to Lt. Col.?  Or would it be once an NCO always an NCO? 

Then we would need to ask, what would be the trigger to have person a go into the NCO training side vs. the Officer side.  I guess that could be the 4 years of college.

[O-Rex]

It's a noble idea, but as some folks already stated, given our current structure, it looks like a solution looking for a need to fill . . . . .

[isuhawkeye]

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think the main reason why CAP calls it a Sergeant is because E-4 for other services is an NCO, whereas for the AF it is not.  Makes sense to me, though YMMV

An E-4 Specialist in the Army is NOT an NCO.  An E-4 Corporal, however, is.

The AF used to have a similar system in place for E-4's to be given NCO authority, but the no longer do so.

[lordmonar]

I agree that this is really a solution with out a problem....

I was just thinking out loud.....IF CAP wanted to "reblue" our members and IF CAP wanted to develope a team of people to take on that task, then we could develope a workable, sensable system to get there.

RickFranz....the NCO ranks would be more like a job than a ranks system.

You would not start as an NCO and move up and then switch over to being an officer....but you could.  Likewise an officer of any rank could decide to switch over to being an NCO.

I would not like to see NCO's holding down any other staff jobs....they are either part of the military training program or they are not.   So a MSgt (master rated NCO) who then stopped doing that job and went over to be personnel officer or some other wing level job would switch over to the appropriate officer rank.  Like wise a CAP Major who has not rating in the military training program but wanted to switch over would come in as a SrA until he got his technician rating and then would progress up from there.

[afgeo4]

No, this isn't another one of "those" threads.

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that in the NEC agenda notes, the NCO topic is discussed and a decision was made to research the concept of creating an NCO career track with promotions and including non-prior members to be eligible to become NCOs.

I guess sometimes NHQ does hear us. I am glad. Hopefully they will allow current officers to switch to NCO grades so I can put my chevrons back on.

Not unless they change the officer program.. so if you put your chevrons back on are you going to salute and call "sir" a 21 year old, with 6 months in CAP and completion of level one....

That is what you would have to do....  (I am a active duty SMSgt By the way....)

That's funny because Air Force Chiefs with 35 years time in service salute and call "sir/ma'am" 22 year olds with 4 months in USAF and completion of a basic and tech courses. I've never seen them complain about it and it hasn't really had such a horrifying effect as you would claim.

[afgeo4]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

Since there can be no caste division of "workers" vs. "managers" in volunteer organization, we don't.

Col's will still be emptying the trash cans at unit meetings whether we have NCO's or not.

You missed my point....the NCO's would have a job....just like the Admin Officer, Ops Officer, and Logistics Officer.  His job would to teach the "military side" of CAP....specificly drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, military heritage and traditions.  The would generally fall under/with the Professional Development Officer.

Right now this instance...I agree with you (and I stated in my original post) that there is no need for NCOs.  We could use them in the training role IF.....IF we made such military training mandatory for our officer professional development.

CAP NCOs would not...I SAY AGAIN...would not fulfill the traditional role NCOs have in the real military for the simple fact that we have no airman to train and supervise.

Except that we do... the cadets and new senior members.

NCO's are perfect for leadership/activities officer positions. They'd thrive in the AE Instructor role. They'd do quite well on ES missions as well. I just think they should be restricted from command roles and staff positions. Why would then someone choose an NCO grade? So they're not eligible to become a commander by "force" or "situation". So they are comfortable where they are, making a difference at the NCO level.

Don't you think there's something reassuring about being trained by someone who's a CMSgt vs a Col... could it be that the Col probably spent his/her last 10 years being an office brat?

[Flying Pig]

Why would a CAP NCO do any better as an instructor or activities and why would they do "quite well" on ES missions vs. a CAP 1st Lt?  Nobody is ever "forced" into any position.  Again, I think to many people are relating this to a military NCO and its not going to be the same thing.

So here I am, a prior service military E-5, no degree.  Im curious under this plan, what would happen to me as an example?  Would I end up becoming a SSgt?  What happens when several of the Air Guard members I have decide to stay NCOs and we end up with a Sq of NCO's?  Who runs the Sq if the enlisted ranks cant command units?  Can I still stay a Mission Pilot? Still nobody has explained why we need both officer and enlisted other than the cadets would might relate to it better.

by afgeo4....
Don't you think there's something reassuring about being trained by someone who's a CMSgt vs a Col... could it be that the Col probably spent his/her last 10 years being an office brat?

If this were the real military you'd be exactly right. It would be neat if we were really able to have that culture in CAP.  But, in CAP, they would both have the same experience.  You not going to have a crusty ol' Chief in CAP anymore than you could have the same crusty ol' Col.  We all do the same missions and the same job with the same under the same conditions.  In the military there is a definite separation between a Col and a Chief both in living arrangements, financial status, benefits, sometimes education and responsibilities.  In CAP, we will not have that.  It will still be Bob and Joe who show up one night per week with a different patch on their shoulders.   We have prior military NCOs to recognize those "real" NCO's.   Its not going to be what you all think.  Nobody outside of CAP cares that we are all officers, they just want the job done.

[afgeo4]

Why would a CAP NCO do any better as an instructor or activities and why would they do "quite well" on ES missions vs. a CAP 1st Lt?  Nobody is ever "forced" into any position.  Again, I think to many people are relating this to a military NCO and its not going to be the same thing.

So here I am, a prior service military E-5, no degree.  Im curious under this plan, what would happen to me as an example?  Would I end up becoming a SSgt?  What happens when several of the Air Guard members I have decide to stay NCOs and we end up with a Sq of NCO's?  Who runs the Sq if the enlisted ranks cant command units?  Can I still stay a Mission Pilot? Still nobody has explained why we need both officer and enlisted other than the cadets would might relate to it better.

by afgeo4....
Don't you think there's something reassuring about being trained by someone who's a CMSgt vs a Col... could it be that the Col probably spent his/her last 10 years being an office brat?

If this were the real military you'd be exactly right. It would be neat if we were really able to have that culture in CAP.  But, in CAP, they would both have the same experience.  You not going to have a crusty ol' Chief in CAP anymore than you could have the same crusty ol' Col.  We all do the same missions and the same job with the same under the same conditions.  In the military there is a definite separation between a Col and a Chief both in living arrangements, financial status, benefits, sometimes education and responsibilities.  In CAP, we will not have that.  It will still be Bob and Joe who show up one night per week with a different patch on their shoulders.   We have prior military NCOs to recognize those "real" NCO's.   Its not going to be what you all think.  Nobody outside of CAP cares that we are all officers, they just want the job done.

Given CAP culture, a CAP CMSgt cannot will not be a group/wing commander and may not even be accepted onto wing staff. That's not in the regs my friend, but it is the case. Our command does "encourage" NCO's to turn into officers if they want leadership positions and that is simply the case. I know of a handful myself. For those from NY... Pops is a good example.

Given that... a CAP colonel would have to have been a Wing CC, so he/she must have been on Wing staff prior to that... and probably a Group CC prior to that... and a Group staffie prior to that. That's the normal progression. So... given all that, there have probably been years since the person has been able to be at the one on one training level with a cadet. That changes a person's perspective on things and that's not really good when it comes to training. By that logic, a CMSgt hasn't held positions higher than Sq CC or maybe assistant staff officer or staff officer at group = much more time spent at the squadron level, dealing with new members and cadets = good experience and perspective.

That works in CAP and the military. Let's face it, people in CAP don't get promoted much for staying leadership officers their whole lives.

NCO's would do better because they'd know this is and will be their job. They focus on it better. They have a different attitude toward things... that would be in the military and CAP too. NCO's are naturally more hands-on because that's their job. Training requires hands-on techniques as much as it requires hands-off techniques.

BTW... ever had officers teach NCO academy? Non-prior NCO officers? It isn't very reassuring. Why? Because how can they teach what they've never done?

[jeders]

^Honestly, I think your logic here is incredibly flawed. That NCO can still do just as good of a job wearing gold bars. Just because they are hands on doesn't mean that they have to be an NCO; and just because they aren't an NCO doesn't mean they can't be good hands on teachers and leaders.

[lordmonar]

So here I am, a prior service military E-5, no degree.  Im curious under this plan, what would happen to me as an example?  Would I end up becoming a SSgt?  What happens when several of the Air Guard members I have decide to stay NCOs and we end up with a Sq of NCO's?  Who runs the Sq if the enlisted ranks cant command units?  Can I still stay a Mission Pilot? Still nobody has explained why we need both officer and enlisted other than the cadets would might relate to it better.

Nothing....unless you choose to go this route.  Anyone or no one can become an NCO under this plan.  They would have the specific job of training CAP members in military skills and that is all.  The would work under/with the PDO throughout a members career.

This would not affect any ES qualifications....except for higher level qualifications (say Section Cheifs and above).
NCOs should not be in command or staff positions (they can duel hat if necessary...but it would be encouraged for them to focus just on military training under the PDO).  NCOs above the squadron should be working for the group/wing/region/national command chiefs' staff.  This will help keep from blurring the rank lines any more than we already do.

As for the need....when the Command Chief from Iowa (his name slips my mind right now) first pushed this issue...he was addressing the concern that CAP is too business like and not military enough.  Is this really a problem?  No...not really....but IF.....IF we wanted to make CAP more military...developing a specialty track who's sole job was to develop the military aspects of our identity would help us greatly.

[O-Rex]

In reality, the only CAP members with any real "authority" mojo are your CC's.

A CAP "officer" and/or a CAP "NCO" who doesn't contribute to the cause, and engages in heavy hangar-talk while I'm trying to conduct a meeting would be equally worthless to me.

Again, think about the cost-benefit of implementing and managing something that seems to be nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

[lordmonar]

As I said before....and I said to the Command Chief way back when.

The first thing that would have to happen is that we would need to MANDATE military training for everyone.

Now I am not advocating that.....just sketching out how an NCO corps could be used in CAP. 

We would have to give them a real job and the provide them with a real specialty track progression program.

As things stand right now....I don't see a real need to mandate military training for everyone.  I also don't really see a need for CAP NCOs and IMHO that option should be removed.

But IF.....IF we wanted to re-blue CAP.....and IF....IF we wanted to give something for NCOs to do, we could merge these two into one system quite easily.

[Hawk200]

I think it might throw some of the younger AF folks, but we throw them a curve ball with the flight officer ranks anyway, so why not Sgt.. 

It's not going to look right to "redesignate" Air Force ranks to our own ends. Best to eliminate it, makes things easier.

The AF changed the NCO status for an E-4 (Sgt now SrA) back in the 1990's...

No, they didn't change it back in the '90's. The E-4 Sergeant was phased out in the
early '90's. I was a Senior Airman back in '91, and the Sergeant rank went into a phase out through attrition in '90, almost a full year before I would have been eligible for it.

....however the Navy and parts of the Army still think of E-4 as an NCO.

As far as I know of the Navy, an E-4 is an NCO. As for the Army, even in the combat arms branches, an E-4 is not commonly thought of as an NCO. Corporals are fairly rare, I've only known of less than a dozen in almost 6 years of time in an Army component. They are nowhere near as common as those outside the Army might think.

CAP NCOs would not...I SAY AGAIN...would not fulfill the traditional role NCOs have in the real military for the simple fact that we have no airman to train and supervise.

A valid point. Considering our program, they would have no position to be plugged into. They would probably be ideal in a few positions, but overall there is no overwhelming demand for them in our program. And when it comes to supervision, there isn't any position for them. Our program would require a massive restructuring to accomodate them.

If a former NCO wishes to retain their rank, I don't have any problem with that. But I don't think we need to create something for the simple desire to have it.

[Eclipse]

As I said before....and I said to the Command Chief way back when.

The first thing that would have to happen is that we would need to MANDATE military training for everyone.

Now I am not advocating that.....just sketching out how an NCO corps could be used in CAP. 

We would have to give them a real job and the provide them with a real specialty track progression program.

As things stand right now....I don't see a real need to mandate military training for everyone.  I also don't really see a need for CAP NCOs and IMHO that option should be removed.

But IF.....IF we wanted to re-blue CAP.....and IF....IF we wanted to give something for NCOs to do, we could merge these two into one system quite easily.

I'm with you here - to make this work, members would be GIVEN assignments, and much like the MC$, you could request anything you want, but at the end of the day, (as my kids say) "you get what you get and don't throw a fit..." .  Everyone has a responsibility, a track to get somewhere they want to be, and no empty shirts.

The attrition rate would be pretty high, but if we could weather the storm the core-group would be lean mean, and on the same page.

However unless we do some charter and organization revisions, I'm not sure where that would put those who are strong, contributing members, but have no interest in the military side of the CAP Multi-verse.

[SarDragon]

MC$ = ??   It's not intuitive to me.

[lordmonar]

MC$ = ??   It's not intuitive to me.

Maybe Mc Donalds ?

[Eclipse]

MC$ = ??   It's not intuitive to me.

Monetarily Compensated $ervice

[Flying Pig]

by afgeo4
Given CAP culture, a CAP CMSgt cannot will not be a group/wing commander and may not even be accepted onto wing staff. That's not in the regs my friend, but it is the case. Our command does "encourage" NCO's to turn into officers if they want leadership positions and that is simply the case. I know of a handful myself. For those from NY... Pops is a good example.

Given that... a CAP colonel would have to have been a Wing CC, so he/she must have been on Wing staff prior to that... and probably a Group CC prior to that... and a Group staffie prior to that. That's the normal progression. So... given all that, there have probably been years since the person has been able to be at the one on one training level with a cadet. That changes a person's perspective on things and that's not really good when it comes to training. By that logic, a CMSgt hasn't held positions higher than Sq CC or maybe assistant staff officer or staff officer at group = much more time spent at the squadron level, dealing with new members and cadets = good experience and perspective.

That works in CAP and the military. Let's face it, people in CAP don't get promoted much for staying leadership officers their whole lives.

NCO's would do better because they'd know this is and will be their job. They focus on it better. They have a different attitude toward things... that would be in the military and CAP too. NCO's are naturally more hands-on because that's their job. Training requires hands-on techniques as much as it requires hands-off techniques.

BTW... ever had officers teach NCO academy? Non-prior NCO officers? It isn't very reassuring. Why? Because how can they teach what they've never done?
______________________________________________

You just described 95% of the CAP membership.  We are making it sound like all Officers will someday move onto Sq. Commander, and then on to Group Commander like its some sort of natural progression.  So are we going to have a completely different set of Professional Development for NCO's vs. Officers?  We cant even have SLS and CLC out here in CA often times because of lack of participation.  So I cant imagine having completely separate Officer and NCO courses.

As far as having an officer teaching an NCO course.  Again, apples and oranges.  Seniors Officers teaching CADET NCO's does not compare to military officers teaching military NCOs. By this logic, what you are truly saying is someone needs to have been a cadet to work with cadets.  There is no reason why a CAP 1st Lt. cant teach an NCOS or a BCS, or teach drill and leadership.  This is why we have Specialty Tracks.  When you see a Capt. walking around with their Master Cadet Programs rating, you know he/she is the person to go to.  And lets face it.  We arent walking around base with hundreds of people where we need instant identification of someone who can teach a cadet how to drill.  The majority of this happens at the Sq. level and everyone knows who the "go to" people are for cadet programs in their Sq. or Group.  You are right, NCO's are more hands on....in the military.  That does not mean that culture is going to transfer to CAP simply because they now have stripes on their sleeve.  The NCO mindset is something that is engrained over a few years of "living the life."  And in CAP, Officers and NCO's live the same life.

Again, I think the majority of this is done with valid intentions, but all we are going to end up with are members who chose to wear a different patch.  The volunteer nature of CAP is that we need people to do the job.  As a Sq. Commander, Im not the slightest bit concerned about what you have on your sleeve or shoulder or how long you have been in.  If I need a Finance Officer or a Deputy, and you are a SSgt, guess what, your getting the job.  WHat happens if I run out of Officers for "Officer Positions"?  Do I submit a request to Wing to have an for a Finance Officer and have a Capt transfered in or do I work with who I have?

[Flying Pig]

As I said before....and I said to the Command Chief way back when.

The first thing that would have to happen is that we would need to MANDATE military training for everyone.

Now I am not advocating that.....just sketching out how an NCO corps could be used in CAP. 

We would have to give them a real job and the provide them with a real specialty track progression program.

As things stand right now....I don't see a real need to mandate military training for everyone.  I also don't really see a need for CAP NCOs and IMHO that option should be removed.

But IF.....IF we wanted to re-blue CAP.....and IF....IF we wanted to give something for NCOs to do, we could merge these two into one system quite easily.

I'm with you here - to make this work, members would be GIVEN assignments, and much like the MC$, you could request anything you want, but at the end of the day, (as my kids say) "you get what you get and don't throw a fit..." .  Everyone has a responsibility, a track to get somewhere they want to be, and no empty shirts.

The attrition rate would be pretty high, but if we could weather the storm the core-group would be lean mean, and on the same page.

However unless we do some charter and organization revisions, I'm not sure where that would put those who are strong, contributing members, but have no interest in the military side of the CAP Multi-verse.

Your right, but we are a volunteer organization that does not have the time for serious attrition and weathering the storm.  And this core group, are they willing to branch out and re locate to areas where they are needed like a true NCO Corps member would be transfered? 
Will a solid CAP CMSgt be willing to relocate to a Sq. in another group to help a unit that cant find one?  Probably not anymore that a Capt would be willing to pass his home unit to drive 3 hours to the next group over to help out.  Oh wait, but they would be NCOs so they would be willing to do that.  I forgot.  Its the patch that makes the difference.   

Still, not that I am the guy to convince, but as a Sq. Commander, nobody has explained what true benefit this would bring to the program other than depleting the pool of members I can use to get the job done and placing limits on the staff positions they can hold.  What would the difference be in the criteria for NCO vs Officer, what would be the promotion Professional Development courses and what would happen when my unit has 10 NCOs and one officer?

Im not buying the stern jawed, leathered skinned vision of the CAP NCO.

[afgeo4]

By the way y'all... I don't know what Prof Dev they're going to come up with for this. I think things like SLS, CLC and maybe distance learning USAF ALS/NCOA (if they'll do that for us, but I doubt it) would be good.

An SNCO academy would be a good thing to be done region/national once every couple of years. Aside from that... I don't think anything else should be different.

Here's my worry...

Say a SSgt (who's a guardsman) gets promoted to TSgt in the Guard... he/she would normally be promoted in CAP too (according to today's regs). If we add requirements to the promotion, does he/she stay a SSgt in CAP until he/she completes the said requirements?

In other words, by creating our own promotion system, do we eliminate the connection between the military promotion and ours?

How does this currently work with officers?

[Eclipse]

In other words, by creating our own promotion system, do we eliminate the connection between the military promotion and ours?

How does this currently work with officers?

CAP Senior members can be promoted in two ways:

Complete the CAP PD and service requirements for the respective grade.

Be approved for special appointment based on a promotion in another qualified service.
If you receive a special appointment to "x" because of the Army, you can still progress to "y" internal to CAP as long as you meet CAP's requirements.

[afgeo4]

In other words, by creating our own promotion system, do we eliminate the connection between the military promotion and ours?

How does this currently work with officers?

CAP Senior members can be promoted in two ways:

Complete the CAP PD and service requirements for the respective grade.

Be approved for special appointment based on a promotion in another qualified service.
If you receive a special appointment to "x" because of the Army, you can still progress to "y" internal to CAP as long as you meet CAP's requirements.

Special appointments work just one time, when you come into CAP, don't they? They aren't special promotions, right?

[lordmonar]

By the way y'all... I don't know what Prof Dev they're going to come up with for this. I think things like SLS, CLC and maybe distance learning USAF ALS/NCOA (if they'll do that for us, but I doubt it) would be good.

An SNCO academy would be a good thing to be done region/national once every couple of years. Aside from that... I don't think anything else should be different.

Here's my worry...

Say a SSgt (who's a guardsman) gets promoted to TSgt in the Guard... he/she would normally be promoted in CAP too (according to today's regs). If we add requirements to the promotion, does he/she stay a SSgt in CAP until he/she completes the said requirements?

In other words, by creating our own promotion system, do we eliminate the connection between the military promotion and ours?

How does this currently work with officers?

With AD officers...as they get promoted we CAN....allowed but not mandatory.....promote them just like initial grade.

The same thing would happen for CAP NCO's who were also real NCO's....up to the MSgt level (just like Lt Col for officers).

Flying Pig....in my vision of this thing....you would only have one or two NCOs per unit (about a ratio of 1:10 NCO:Officers).  So 10 person unit would have at the most 1 NCO and 9 officers.  Because  the NCO has a single job of training the officers....no officers...no job.

As for benefits....as I said before....it could be used to improve CAP's military knowledge.

[Flying Pig]

Since none of this has been thought out beyond what patch everyone wants to wear, and the PD isnt much different, lets make it simple.

If you have a Cadet Programs Specialty Track, you come in as an NCO.  If you are a military NCO, your CAP promotions are based on your PD (( or )) your military promotion which ever comes first regardless of what branch of the military you are in.  It just needs to be understood we teach the AF way.  (Since I am a Marine, it really hurt for me to just write that sentence.)  
If your not a military member, you get to go with the established CAP Professional Development route.  Since military-CAP NCO's are going to be developed to bring their military NCO experience to CAP, which I think is what we are truly harness here, then their military experience should be weighed 100% just as it is with military officers coming into CAP.  I have two retired AF LTC's in my unit who are CAP LTC's.  Both are outstanding.  They are restricted from ever rising to full Col unless they meet the established CAP criteria and hold certain positions.  We can do the same with E-9.  Possibly restrict E-9 for the Wing Cadet Programs Director, etc.  We can find jobs in Cadet Programs to restrict for E-9's.
Keep the PD the same for everyone because CAP is CAP and officers and enlisted all need the same information to keep this program running properly.  We don't have the time, money or manpower to have officer and NCO courses specific to each one.  Sure, if we develop an NCO branch I can see having a few course set aside for those who wish to expand their knowledge of Drill, uniforms, PT, etc.  Perhaps held in conjunction with cadet encampments, BCS's, NCOS etc.  Since, during these courses, you are already going to have the "Cadet Programs" gurus already at the location, already teaching the cadets.  It may mean long nights for the instructors, but hey...they are already there.  Beats having an entirely separate course on different dates.  And in doing so, you may actually get a couple extra bodies to help out while they are attending their "training".  And they would be able to watch and observe the animals in the zoo they are being trained to teach, in their natural environment.

As I think someone stated above, members would come is as an E-4 right? Even if it was E-3 it will still work.

Look at this.
Enlisted    Officer
E-3 =       SMWOG
E-4 =       2nd Lt.
E-5 =       1st Lt.
E-6 =       Capt
E-7 =       Maj
E-8 =       LTC
E-9 =       Col

By keeping the PD the same regardless of enlisted or officer will allow an E-6, in tough times, to transfer himself to the rank of Capt if it becomes necessary for him to hold, for example, a Sq. Commander position if his unit is in a bind and there is nobody else.  When his tenure is done, he effortlessly transfers himself back to E-6 and continues on in the NCO track.  Any PD he does, and promotions he receives will also allow him to promote within the enlisted track as well while he is serving as an officer. Hence...no time or effort lost.  However, since we want subject matter experts in our NCO Corps, attach Cadet Programs Tech, Senior and Master to certain ranks in the progression to ensure we don't end up have an E-8 with a tech rating in CP.  Because in my situation, I am a Cadet Progams Tech, but I am the Sq. Commander and a Prior Service NCO.  When my 10 year old joins in a couple of years, I plan on getting back into CP heavily, so I could transfer back to the enlisted ranks at that point with no loss of time or grade or effort on PD.

Lets face it kids.....we are never going to have a true NCO Corps that many of us military members are familiar with.  So lets accept that.  For those who were never in the military, trust me, its not going to happen.  So, in that case, there is no confusion.  If you see an enlisted member strutting across the grinder, you know he/she is a cadet programs member and has chosen to focus their attention completely on the aspects of cadet programs OR a military member who has chosen to pursue another specialty track while maintaining their military grade.  That, I believe, will most closely develop any type of "NCO Corps" we could hope for in our type of organization.  And, it would also allow the NCO's to address issues with the Seniors.  If the Sq. Commander has decided that his officers need a customs and courtesy class, uniform wear, or anything related to the "military" aspect of CAP, he calls in his NCO, who is recognized as having chosen that area of expertise.

As far as the distinction between who is ultimately in charge.  CAP has already dealt with that.  We command by position, not rank in CAP so nothing will change there.  So we arent going to have an issue of a brand new CAP 2nd Lt coming in and smacking down the Deputy Commander for Cadets who is MSgt's and destroying the program because the MSgt 's position already trumps the rank.

I think this deals with a lot of the "social" issues relating to having both sides.  In reality, they aren't really any different, it just a visual symbol of what you road you have chosen to pursue in your CAP career, however, it will not keep you from pursuing other interests in the program either.  

Im sure there are holes in the plan, but I think it makes more sense than just randomly having an NCO Corps just for the sake of having one. And in the end, I think having NCO's in anything other than cadet programs is pretty much a waste of time.  If you are a military NCO who doesnt want to work with cadets, I think we should just stick with the already established Senior Member NCO program.  But for those who want to promote in the NCO ranks, you need to be involved in Cadet Programs or a currently serving military member who can promote that way.

Wheeeew.

[Eclipse]

In other words, by creating our own promotion system, do we eliminate the connection between the military promotion and ours?

How does this currently work with officers?

CAP Senior members can be promoted in two ways:

Complete the CAP PD and service requirements for the respective grade.

Be approved for special appointment based on a promotion in another qualified service.
If you receive a special appointment to "x" because of the Army, you can still progress to "y" internal to CAP as long as you meet CAP's requirements.

Special appointments work just one time, when you come into CAP, don't they? They aren't special promotions, right?

You can be promoted to any level, anytime, as long as someone with the proper authority approves.

The notion of a 1-time SA promotion, etc., is an urban legend outside of any reg, though many
Wings & Regions use it as an unwritten rule.

[afgeo4]

I think Robert (Flying Pig) has just proposed a great reason for having an enlisted corps and also how to implement it into our current framework.

I would, however, also try to attract more MX NCO's with A&P's to possibly alleviate maintenance costs for our aircraft and I wouldn't restrict NCO's to cadet programs. I think they'd fit in really well into ES as well.

[Hawk200]

I don't understand the viewpoint of allowing prior NCO's up to only MSgt. Why? It's not the same as the colonel grade.

Any E-9 that comes in and wants to keep the rank should get it. We don't have any special positions for it, why restrict it?

[lordmonar]

I don't understand the viewpoint of allowing prior NCO's up to only MSgt. Why? It's not the same as the colonel grade.

Any E-9 that comes in and wants to keep the rank should get it. We don't have any special positions for it, why restrict it?

But we would have special position for it....if my vision of the NCO corps were to be instituted...hence the rank restriction.

[Flying Pig]

Maybe we dont need special assignments for E-9's.  We could have Command Chiefs in the similar way the Army has Command Sgt Maj's. at different levels.

My only thing is, I really dont see enlisted having much use outside of the cadet programs.  There is really no point unless you are a prior service NCO who has decided to keep their rank.  If we are trying to harness the military type image of the NCO, leave the Senior Member NCO's in cadet programs where they can have a direct effect on the cadets.  That will bleed over to the senior officer side as those members filter around.  We really don't need NCOs in other tracks specifically.  Because then we are having just for the sake of having them.  There is nothing an ES NCO or a Comm NCO is going to do that a LTC ES member isn't going to do.  An ES SSgt isnt going to be anymore of a subject matter expert than a Maj.  Our training isnt set up to give one person a different skill set in any one track.  We all have access to the same training. 

We are talking that we want the NCOs to be the subject matter experts.  Alright, then means we should ALL be NCOs right?

If you guys really want NCOs and we end up having them, give them their own "realm". And that realm should be the cadet programs.  Then the NCO Corps will naturally filter into other Specialty Tracks as well, because those people will also be involved in ES, Comm, Admin etc. but their emphasis will always be primarily the "military side" of CAP, which is the cadet program, not the Senior program. Your not going to find Senior Member officers suddenly enthusiastic and learning drill or uniform wear simply because Capt. Jones converted over to the NCO side of the house to work with cadets and showed up at the meeting with his new stripes.
The same people you have in CAP as officers today will be the SAME people who will be the NCO's tomorrow if this idea were to kick in.

Having NCOs as A&P's, why?  I am not seeing how recruiting A&P's and making them NCO's is going to have any affect what so ever on our program, unless we are trying to emulate the military by having officer pilots and enlisted "Crew Chiefs" which I dont think was your idea. Again, with that all we are doing is picking duties and assigning a symbol.  This job gets a bar, that job gets stripes, this gets a bar, that gets stripes.  How are we going to attract A&P's anymore then vs. what we do now.  We already award Capt for A&P's who come in.  They arent going to flock in simply because they can be NCO's.  That provision is already in place if they are a former military NCO.

My point is that the cadet programs is going to be the place where, if any, anyone is going to give a rats pituty about whether you a "Master Sergeant" or not vs. a Maj.  In the Senior program, it will always be....
"Hey Joe, how do you turn this thing on?"...."But Maj. Smith, my title is Master Sergeant."......"OK Joe, get over here and fix this thing.  By the way, we still on for fishing tomorrow morning?"..."Yeah, you bringing the beverages?"

Maybe cadets will identify more with leaders who are NCOs?  I dont know, the program seems to have worked pretty well for the last 20 years I have been involved.

I am personally still having a hard time with the whole NCO Corps to begin with.  I don't feel there is any need for it at all, and I am still of the belief that some of this is being motivated simply by the fact that some people just want to wear stripes vs. bars on their uniform.  Others I think have a valid motivation but I don't think its effect will be what some think it will be.  Maybe in the onset, but as time goes on, I don't think you will see much, if any separation between the two.  I believe it will truly dilute into people choosing what patch you think makes their mess dress look better.  We don't have the capacity in CAP to have completely dedicated and separate Officer and NCO branches.

Im trying to be open minded about this, but I think if we expand the NCOs to anyone who wants to be the "expert go to guy" then lets just abandon the officer ranks all together and lets all start wearing enlisted chevrons, because the definition should include everyone. 

[Hawk200]

I don't think that NCO's should be limited to a simple "Leadership NCO" position. There are plenty of places that their former service would be useful, but limiting based on their stripes is pigeon-holing them. If that's what we would do, there is no point to having our own "home grown" NCO's in the first place.

I don't mind having them around, if the individual desires it. I've know plenty of people that just didn't feel like being an officer. Nothing wrong with it. Let them keep it, it's not hurting anyone, and they earned it the hard way.

[Flying Pig]

I agree.  Which leads us right back to the program we have in place now, which I am completely happy with.

[Hawk200]

I agree.  Which leads us right back to the program we have in place now, which I am completely happy with.

For the most part I am too. I just think that there should be a promotion mechanism for those wanting to hang on to their heritage. It seems screwy that a guy could come in as a Staff Sergeant, and could easily be one in CAP for thirty or forty years.

In a case like that, I would definitely support a cutoff at Master, or Senior Master. There shouldn't be an option to back door into a Cheif rank.

[DNall]

Then there is the question of the 20 year E8 or E9 that comes from something other than the AF with no CAP background, how do you treat them?  Come on in here is your SMSgt or CMSgt now go forth.  I think without some short of "This is the way we do it here" class, we would find ourselfs in the same sorta mess that I been reading about on another thread here about AF Officers coming into CAP.

I respect that position, just as I do with the AF LtCol that comes over here & is told to go forth with grade intact. I do absolutely think military grade should carry over, but I also favor an additional transition course specifically for prior service as a condition of advanced promotion. There's a couple real good managing volunteers courses, including one from FEMA, that I think should be part of that process.

I think his point is that our standards for 2d Lt, compared to the real military are... how gentlhy can I put this....a crock.

Put in that context, his gentle warning about what it would mean to return to CAP NCO ranks is not really out of line.  If you choose to be a NCO, you will be forced to render courtesies to folks who, unlike real military officers, have next to zero training AND a high likelihood of never actually being in charge of another human being.  Ever.

That's also a fair point, which is where I'd think those standards need to be ramped up. I don't want to slip off into one of those other completely theoretical conversations. I'm just saying, if we CAN start people off in an enlisted system, then the jump to officer can be a whole different thing with ramped up standards. I think that's where the program needs to go, but we can walk it there over time, and this enlisted system is a good first step.


I'd also add that this allows us to eliminate the stupid FO system & make them Amn-SrA. NCO for over 21. Officer comes with an additional set of entry qualifications & board in order to do an intensive course more like what ACA does. Yeah that's sounding pretty good - mainly cause it actually makes sense.

[RiverAux]

The only benefit I can think of for having any sort of NCO program is that every once in a while someone outside CAP might see them and it might help dispell some of the "all Colonels" view of us that appears in some quarters.  Of course wtih an average of about 1 NCO per Wing in CAP right now and little real prospect for more in the future, its not going to make any real difference. 

As to the the main topic, serving military NCOs should promote automatically within CAP under the current system whenever they promote in real life.  I see even less need for non-prior service NCOs than there is for current/prior service NCOs.

Absent a large scale restructuring of the entire senior member professional development and rank program (unlikely), the CAP NCO "corps" is ever unlikely to gain any traction.

[DNall]

Why do we need NCOs you ask? Why is everyone an officer is my question? No organization with functional grade uses only officer grade &/or does not use enlisted grade. By all logic, ours is either non-functional or honorary. We need it to actually be functional.

[RiverAux]

CAP basically has the same rank pyramid as every other organization that uses such titles.  We have a fairly wide base of lower ranking officers with a few on top.  Making the pyramid have a wider base by encompassing NCO ranks won't essentially make anything any better, just different. 

[afgeo4]

CAP basically has the same rank pyramid as every other organization that uses such titles.  We have a fairly wide base of lower ranking officers with a few on top.  Making the pyramid have a wider base by encompassing NCO ranks won't essentially make anything any better, just different. 

Based on a recent post (I don't remember by whom) the most populous grade for officers is Capt. There are less 1st Lts and even less 2nd Lts. That's not a pyramid. That's a diamond. The presence of NCO grades could sway many non-promoting officers to go into the NCO corps, creating less stagnation in grades and a stronger backbone, allowing for stronger, better leaders to promote up the officer chain.

Also, officers who demonstrate inability to lead could be demoted to NCO grades.

[RiverAux]

Its not a perfect pyramid, but in my wing it gets pretty close.  However, the reason it isn't a pyramid is all the special appointments that throw everything out of whack.  That lets a certain percentage of people jump over the lower officer ranks.  If we actually used our professional development system for everybody, it would be a perfect pyramid. 

[DNall]

All organizational structures are by nature a pyramid. That doesn't have anything to do with using officer versus enlisted titles. So you didn't answer my question. Why should all members be officers by default versus enlisted?

CAP basically has the same rank pyramid as every other organization that uses such titles.  We have a fairly wide base of lower ranking officers with a few on top.  Making the pyramid have a wider base by encompassing NCO ranks won't essentially make anything any better, just different. 

Based on a recent post (I don't remember by whom) the most populous grade for officers is Capt. There are less 1st Lts and even less 2nd Lts. That's not a pyramid. That's a diamond. The presence of NCO grades could sway many non-promoting officers to go into the NCO corps, creating less stagnation in grades and a stronger backbone, allowing for stronger, better leaders to promote up the officer chain.

That's one aspect. My thoughts on the subject are more about the nature of the grade. Our officer grades are mostly meaningless cause the standards & promotions are mostly meaningless as well as crowded.

I favor a base enlisted system (current PD program), with a seperate officer tract. Going officer should require a selection board, some education level, and a much more intensive education cycle over a year or so, then board to appoint to 2LT. Further specialty track/PME/TIG (longer than they are now) reqs plus selection boards for every subsequent promotion, and must promote to command/staff at an appropriate command level (field grade belongs to Gp/Wg).

What that does is make all officer grades more scare, therefore more meaningful, and seeks rise thru merit of quality people. The field isn't crowded with people here just to do the job. Those folks stay on the enlisted side & continue as before.

[RiverAux]

Why should all members be officers by default versus enlisted?

No reason in particular, but then again there is no particular reason to change what we have now that would be worth all the commotion, conflict, and effort, it would take to implement.  I've thrown out some ideas myself for massive restructuring of rank & PD, but when it comes right down to it, this entire issue has very little bearing on our actual operations. 

[DNall]

I think it does bear on actual operations in two key ways.

First is inter-agency. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, our grade insignia has meaning to everyone outside our org. When they see specific grades, they associate it with certain levels of authority, training, experience, merit based accomplishment, expertise, professionalism, etc.

Enlisted/NCO grade would be more reflective of the truth. While officer grades could be restricted to people of which that expectation holds true. While I don't believe the CGAux system is the way we should do it, they are a good example that I think holds true of that statement.

I know you & I agree that CAP ES is in or at least approaching a period of historical change. As that occurs, we're going to be moving more into the multi-agency environment. In doing so, it would be my preference to better align the meaning of our grade with expectations a civilian EMA might have for national guard personnel, within reason of course.

Second, there is a serious leadership gap across our organization. There's a lack of quality internal development of leaders/managers. The pool from which we choose positions is muddied to the point of clouding out quality leaders, and in turn pushing them away from the org.

I believe if we had a smaller clearer pool of well qualified candidates that we could focus better training, mentorship, etc on them to develop into the leaders we need as successive levels. We've talked about this at length, I won't drag back off into that conversation again.

All I'm trying to say is:

1) It's only fair to provide existing NCOs a route to promotion.

2) It's reasonable to consider starting new members in enlisted ranks & advancing them to officer later in their career if that's appropriate to them & their position, given serious legitimate training.

3) It's reasonable to place 18-21yo members in Amn - SrA ranks & do away with the confusing FO system.

4) The stuff I discussed might or might not be a good idea, but it isn't something we would do right now in one swoop. It's something that could be implemented in time, AFTER we have an enlisted system working.

Regardless if you agree with the policies or justifications, I think it's hard to argue it's not reasonable for them to even consider such items, don't you?

[RiverAux]

I'm sure that if we put our minds to it we could come up with at least half a dozen very reasonable, logical proposals for a major restructuring of our senior member program that have been extensively discussed here on CAPTalk. 

The problem is that each of them is probably valid and might be a good way to run the program, but then again each of them has major issues within it that would make it basically unworkable without driving off a whole lot of people and hurting the organization in other ways. 

What we have now has worked pretty well for nearly 70 years and while everyone admits it has flaws, it gets the job done. 

[SAR-EMT1]

I have an idea for an NCO corps...

First we must identify their duties....why do we need NCOs?

Since there can be no caste division of "workers" vs. "managers" in volunteer organization, we don't.

Col's will still be emptying the trash cans at unit meetings whether we have NCO's or not.

You missed my point....the NCO's would have a job....just like the Admin Officer, Ops Officer, and Logistics Officer.  His job would to teach the "military side" of CAP....specificly drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, military heritage and traditions.  The would generally fall under/with the Professional Development Officer.

Right now this instance...I agree with you (and I stated in my original post) that there is no need for NCOs.  We could use them in the training role IF.....IF we made such military training mandatory for our officer professional development.

CAP NCOs would not...I SAY AGAIN...would not fulfill the traditional role NCOs have in the real military for the simple fact that we have no airman to train and supervise.

But we DO! The Cadets. I would be fully in favor of seting up the NCOs so that they take care of the cadets.

[Eagle400]

Am I the only one on this thread who knows why the AF does not want CAP to have non-prior service members as NCO's? 

It has nothing to do with the lack of a promotion system or CAP enlisted professional development; it is because CAP tried this long ago and the result was a bunch of sloppy, fat slobs trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's.

Unless CAP starts holding people more accountable and upping the quality of training tenfold, there's no way the Air Force is going to even consider allowing non-prior service members to become NCO's. 
So if things remain the same, CAP will never have non-prior service NCO's. 

Sorry folks, but that is the cold reality sandwich the Air Force has served CAP.   It's time to focus more on quality training and accountability, and then consider the remote possibility of non-prior service NCO's.

In the meantime, I think there should be discussions about how to allow CAP NCO's to promote within CAP once they have retired or left the service.  That is a much more probable possibility.                        

     

[lordmonar]

CCSE,

Your argument does not really hold water.

If the USAF does not want non-prior service to become NCO's because they don't meet USAF expectations......you would think they would not want non-prior service officers to become sloppy, fat slobs pretending to be real officers.

I don't really think the USAF cares one way or the other.

The problem is simply we have built our organization around officers...which is fine and good as far as it goes...and there is no easy way of integrating NCOs into that organization.

That is why I think...as it is now...we should do away with NCO all together.

As it is...CAP NCOs are just a "I'm better than you" clique that has no real job and only serves to muddle the already muddy waters when it comes to CAP ranks.

[Eagle400]

If the USAF does not want non-prior service to become NCO's because they don't meet USAF expectations......you would think they would not want non-prior service officers to become sloppy, fat slobs pretending to be real officers.

Yes, it does seem strange and a bit backwards, doesn't it?

However, DeputyDog (just look him up on the memberlist) told me in another forum that CAP did, in fact, experiment with having non-prior service NCO's and the Air Force did, in fact, suspend the experiment because too many unprofessional wannabes were trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's. 

But don't take it from me... send DeputyDog a PM.   

[DeputyDog]

...told me in another forum that CAP did, in fact, experiment with having non-prior service NCO's and the Air Force did, in fact, suspend the experiment because too many unprofessional wannabes were trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's.  

Those are your words, not mine. I never said they were trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCOs.

However, you are looking at only one aspect of what I said. It was a combination of things that caused its discontinuance. It wasn't an experiment with an "enlisted program"...it was how it was.

[afgeo4]

Am I the only one on this thread who knows why the AF does not want CAP to have non-prior service members as NCO's? 

It has nothing to do with the lack of a promotion system or CAP enlisted professional development; it is because CAP tried this long ago and the result was a bunch of sloppy, fat slobs trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's.

Unless CAP starts holding people more accountable and upping the quality of training tenfold, there's no way the Air Force is going to even consider allowing non-prior service members to become NCO's. 
So if things remain the same, CAP will never have non-prior service NCO's. 

Sorry folks, but that is the cold reality sandwich the Air Force has served CAP.   It's time to focus more on quality training and accountability, and then consider the remote possibility of non-prior service NCO's.

In the meantime, I think there should be discussions about how to allow CAP NCO's to promote within CAP once they have retired or left the service.  That is a much more probable possibility.                         

     

So... a bunch of fat slobs trying to pass themselves off as Majors = GO, but a bunch of fat slobs trying to pass themselves off as Master Sergeants = STOP?

Give me a break, man. This one I'm not buying for a second.

[DNall]

I'm sure that if we put our minds to it we could come up with at least half a dozen very reasonable, logical proposals for a major restructuring of our senior member program that have been extensively discussed here on CAPTalk. 

The problem is that each of them is probably valid and might be a good way to run the program, but then again each of them has major issues within it that would make it basically unworkable without driving off a whole lot of people and hurting the organization in other ways. 

What we have now has worked pretty well for nearly 70 years and while everyone admits it has flaws, it gets the job done. 

That's not true though. The program we currently run is not what we've been doing all along. For the vast majority of our history we HAVE had an enlisted system that functioned much as I've explained. It was there when we were founded & existed well into the 70s as I recall (not a short experiment as described above). We've also been directly commanded by the AF CoC & not functioned as a corporation. I would argue that those vast shifts from the system that proved over generations to be highly successful have seriously damaged the organization to the state it's in now.

As far as losing members, I said this earlier today. I don't care! Our retention is crap now. Most members will be gone in 1-3 years, regardless of what we do. And they'll be replaced just as fast. That's if we do nothing at all. If we make changes to aggressively fix the key organizational problems that cause those major issues, then certainly big change will scare people off, but it'll also attract and hold a whole new group of people to replace them. Worst case is we won't be any worse off than we are now.

Add to that the statistics we were talking about active members... 35-40% active, minus cadets, minus not active in ES, equals can't remotely cover the AF standards for just their mission as defined in the Comm TA, much less step up to bigger missions or anything else of consequence, or for that matter come close to justifying our budget. In other words, it's already broke & been that way for years. You can keep laying on the ground or you can get up & move forward.

[RiverAux]

Of all the many issues CAP needs to be addressing, this just doesn't make the top 5.  Yes, some of our partners may think its a little odd that we have only officers on the senior side, but I'm not aware of that costing us one mission.  I don't have a problem with increasing standards and training, but that can be done within our current system.

And, you keep stating that we lose "most" of our members within 3 years which isn't quite right.  We lose some of our new recruits over that period, but those that stick with the organization tend to be lifers.  Such a massive change is more likely to drive out our existing long-term personnel. 

While we did have enlisted grades for quite a long time, I'm not aware of any evidence that CAP has ever consisted primarily of enlisted with a few officers.  Go back to the coastal patrol bases and they did have some enlisted around, it appears to me that the majority were officers. 

In any case, a primarily enlisted CAP will not happen because of the entrenced bias towards the special appointments for new members.  You'll need to get rid of that system first and then you might be able to get somewhere.  Too many of our leaders have used these routes to get their rank and to eliminate them would call their own qualificaitons into question and its unlikely they will do so. 

[DNall]

The large majority of people that join CAP are gone after three years. Just like the large majority of people who join the military are gone after their initial obligation is up.

As far as this being a top five issue, the rank portion of this is not. The multi-agency enviro & institutional leadership/standards/fairness issues are very much in the top five. Those are things that are not easily addressed w/o some dramatic paradigm shifting.

I know you have a problem with special appointments based on outside qualifications. While that system needs some tweaking, it's not a wide problem. Most people, including the large majority of corporate leadership, do not come in under such a program & do not advance thru it. What you get more of is political gaming thru positions. That really has nothing to do with promotions.

I guess to just be blunt about it... not everyone deserves or is capable of being a leader/mgr. The majority of any organization are workers. You pick the specially qualified & talented people to undergo intensive training to become career executives. Everyone else stay in the trenches, & rises from there to tactical leadership. We're not going to massively increase membership standards, so we need some other line in the sand that says who is in that leadership category, and then we need to focus training resources to develop those people, while not wasting those resources on people that are always going to be Sq/Gp level staff & tactical operators. The military does that with the break btwn officer & enlisted. That happens to be appropriate to our system, it just needs some tweaking.

[RiverAux]

Based on evaluation of data comparing rank to PD program level in my wing somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of senior members are getting some form of special appointment. 

[DNall]

^ I'd caution you not to trust that data completely. It's not entirely accurate, particularly for older paperwork that's not loaded into the system.

There are not that many special promotion avenues available & most members do not qualify. Other than pilot ratings, the others are not that common. Have you noticed an excess of CFIs in your wing? If that were really the case, you should be exploiting that advantage, which would grow your membership & drive down those stats.

In other words, I think you're wrong about the scale of that issue & that it certainly is not a problem in CAP. You may think it's unfair, but it's not effecting leadership failures of the org.

[RiverAux]

Oh, I'm fairly happy with the data.  While there very well could be some paperwork issues involved with some of these folks, I don't think it is that bad.  In particular I found that almost half of the Lt. Cols. and Captains hadn't completed the appropriate level.  It wasn't nearly as bad for Majors or Lts. 

[Eagle400]

...told me in another forum that CAP did, in fact, experiment with having non-prior service NCO's and the Air Force did, in fact, suspend the experiment because too many unprofessional wannabes were trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's.  

Those are your words, not mine. I never said they were trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCOs.

However, you are looking at only one aspect of what I said. It was a combination of things that caused its discontinuance. It wasn't an experiment with an "enlisted program"...it was how it was.

Semantics. 

You never said there were too many unprofessional wannabes trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's, but that is what you implied.  Here is what you wrote:

When we had an actually enlisted program in the CAP, there were times where we had 20 year old Master Sergeants (senior side). At the time, new senior members that joined at under 21 who did not have the Mitchell Award could not promote to the warrant officer grades.

So enlisted promotions were at the discretion of the squadron commander. There was no actual specific professional development or qualifications for advancement or appointment in the CAP enlisted or NCO grades.

As you can imagine, it royally angered the active duty NCO corps by seeing a sloppy 20 year old CAP Master Sergeant or two. So the NCO corps complained to the highest levels, and then the Air Force "encouraged" the CAP to revise the enlisted program to be restricted to former, retired or currently serving military NCOs.

Technicially we still have an enlisted program for non-prior service members. A Senior Member Without Grade is actually considered an E-1. They can either remain at that level without a chance for advancement, or get promoted to either Flight Officer (if under 21) or to Second Lieutenant (if 21 or older).

So will we go back to it? No. A few years ago it was brought up at the National Board. It was shot down rather quickly. There were a few wing commanders who were in at the time of the change that remembered the reason for the change.

We have to weigh the benefits of having an enlisted and NCO program for non-prior service personnel (of which there are none) to how bad we will tick off the Air Force (which would be really bad). I think they made the right decision.

Emphasis mine.

So I may have been incorrect in my assertion that the original NCO program in CAP was an experiment, but in my eyes a "sloppy 20 year old Master Sergeant" implies someone of a high-caliber wannabe attitude. 

So my saying that "there were too many unprofessional wannabes trying to pass themselves off as "real" NCO's" was an accurate characterization.     

[SarDragon]

The NCO program in CAP wasn't an experiment, it was reality. It was in place for 10 or 15 years (maybe a few more), and seemed to work out. I don't recall too much about it because I was more concerned with cadet things back then. By the time I became an SM, it was on its way out, and there weren't any NCOs in my unit to ask about it.

[DNall]

There were NCOs at the beginnings & continuously until I believe the 70s, don't quote me on the dates though. The program itself has had several incarnations, as has the PD progression on the officer side.

At that final point there was little in the way of a PD program from NCOs, and there were problems. One of the justifications involved complaints by AFSA about the quality of our NCOs, or rather some cases of CAP NCOs representing themselves as real AF NCOs & abusing it. The same has been true on the officer side, including some prominent cases.

This isn't a history lesson. I only mention the historical existence of an NCO corps in order to point out that what we are doing now is not what we've always been doing. It is one stage in a rather continual evolution of the program. If the organization would be better suited to altering that system, then history is not a valid reason to stand in the way of such change.


Completely seperate from ^ that line of discussion... Even if the existing NCO system remains mostly unaltered, what would yall think about getting rid of FOs & making them E-1 to E-3 instead? It just seems to make more sense to me. 

[O-Rex]

Even if the existing NCO system remains mostly unaltered, what would yall think about getting rid of FOs & making them E-1 to E-3 instead?

Remember that FO's are former Cadet Officers: a kid works hard to get there, then becomes a CAP Airman upon conversion to Senior Member, while someone a couple of years older joins, watches a video, maintains a pulse for 6 months and becomes a 2nd Lt?  That would be a hard pill to swallow.

[lordmonar]

Getting rid of FOs and making them E-1 to E-3 is just rampant age discrimination.

[davidsinn]

Even if the existing NCO system remains mostly unaltered, what would yall think about getting rid of FOs & making them E-1 to E-3 instead?

Remember that FO's are former Cadet Officers: a kid works hard to get there, then becomes a CAP Airman upon conversion to Senior Member, while someone a couple of years older joins, watches a video, maintains a pulse for 6 months and becomes a 2nd Lt?  That would be a hard pill to swallow.

Not all FO's are cadet officers. My brother is a cadet airman and turning 18 so he decided to go over to the darkside. Also I know a couple of people that joined in that age range so they had no choice but to go in as an FO.

[RiverAux]

As long as we're re-doing the entire system, lets get rid of this weired 18-21 age class where you can be a cadet or a senior.  Put anyone over 18 into senior membership and start them out in the senior program just like anyone else. 

[RickFranz]

You know I have always found it kinda funny that the job I did in the USAF (Admin) as an E-4 & E5 is the same exact job and duties they let me be a CAP Officer for.  Most of the jobs we do in CAP are just that jobs, not supervisory roles just jobs that need to be done.  I agree with others at have said we should start out like the cadets as enlisted and work up from there.  If you are worried about someone passing themselves off as an NCO, change the design of the rank (some good ideas on another thread).  Let the NCO's that earned their stripes continue to wear them.

Maybe it is time to look at the jobs that are to be done and really match to rank to those jobs.  It would be like having a office full of workers instead of an office full of bosses.

[Dragoon]

You're right - most CAP officers aren't doing officer duties.  They are doing senior airman/junior NCO duties.

But folks are also right that 50 year old E-2's looks really weird.  And given that our grade system is sort of a reward/recruitement tool, asking middle aged mature adult to start as an Airman might discourage more than a few from joining up.

I think a better idea is to start all seniors (including pilots) as flight officers.  It puts you below an officer, but it's not as jarring as taking you all the way down to the bottom of the enlisted ladder.  Plus it's CAP-specific, so it avoids comparisons with USAF.

Then reserve commissioned grade for folks who need it to perform true officer-type duties. 

[lordmonar]

Okay...I retract everything I said about implementing an NCO program.

It's not needed....and making everyone in CAP an enlisted puke is just not going to work.
This thread has drifted into the same old arguments about ranks/position/duties.

Let's keep things as they are and let the dead dog lie.

[Dragoon]

It's funny - so many discussions end up back to rank and position.  That could just be wannabee-ism - but I think it's because this is one area where CAP is seriously screwed up.

Lots of folks don't consider "fixing" our grade or position structures to be a priority.   But it's possible that the current system is an obstacle to any serious organizational improvement.

In other words - the way we manage people today may not be "broke" - as long as you don't expect CAP to be any better tomorrow that it has been for the last 30 or so years.

But if we want to improve as an organization, perhaps part of the problem is that we don't have the right rewards in place to motivate the right folks to do the things we really need done.

So far, throwing officer and NCO grade at folks may make them feel good, may help with recruiting new members who like the idea of being a Chief or a Lt Col, but it might not be motivating the right folks to do the hard jobs CAP really needs done better.

(all that said, lordmonar, your concept is probably the only semi-workable one for an NCO corps I've seen - it defines a role. But for reasons pointed out by others, I think human nature would kill it pretty quickly.  A dual class system is a tough sell in a volunteer group.)

[DNall]

Even if the existing NCO system remains mostly unaltered, what would yall think about getting rid of FOs & making them E-1 to E-3 instead?

Remember that FO's are former Cadet Officers: a kid works hard to get there, then becomes a CAP Airman upon conversion to Senior Member, while someone a couple of years older joins, watches a video, maintains a pulse for 6 months and becomes a 2nd Lt?  That would be a hard pill to swallow.

Think you're a little off there. They may have been a cadet, not necessarily an officer, or not. They could just be a new 18-20yo member off the street with no prior CAP experience. That's how I came in. How is C/Col to SFO any different than SrA?

Getting rid of FOs and making them E-1 to E-3 is just rampant age discrimination.

And making them an FO, when a guy a year older gets made 2Lt on the same exact training, is different in what way?


The reason I raise the issue is the FO system is absolutely jacked. The reason for it is that as an organization we don't trust 18-20yo members (regardless of experience) with the same supervisory capacity as a member over 21. It also looks real stupid to have 18yo 2Lts. If that's going to be the case, then it should follow that we trust them less than prior service NCOs, and the grade looks appropriate on them at that age. If you talk about this in ref to my larger concept, then it's not hard to swallow when most adults are enlisted, and they can apply for training as an officer at 20.

It's funny - so many discussions end up back to rank and position.  That could just be wannabee-ism - but I think it's because this is one area where CAP is seriously screwed up.

Lots of folks don't consider "fixing" our grade or position structures to be a priority.   But it's possible that the current system is an obstacle to any serious organizational improvement.

In other words - the way we manage people today may not be "broke" - as long as you don't expect CAP to be any better tomorrow that it has been for the last 30 or so years.

+1 mostly on that.

[sarmed1]

Those who achieve the rank spent their time doing the details and learning the leadership qualities, it's a development. "Instant" NCO's is a really bad idea.

again maybe on the AD side (and for to some extent some branches reserve components:
However I'll use the AF Reseve since I am a reservist, using the medical carrer field requirements:

36 months time in service
completion of 5 skill level (so tech school and a coorespondence course/skill verification)
completion of Airman Leadership school (coorespondence)
completion of AF trainers course (1 day classroom)

so its not a whole lot more than what we in CAP do now....there is no mysterious leadership ability granted by their years of experience.....heck I see people who have been in the reserves all their carrer who are E-7 that couldnt LEAD anyone let alone themselves out of a wet paperbag with the bottom ripped off....there is no magic to it, they are just there, follow the rules and did a bunch of coorespondence course...we couldnt be doing that much worse.

mk