CAP Talk

I'm curious if anyone here as any insight into to the "whys" of the CAPR 35-5 NCO promotion requirements. 

A former CAP CMSgt told me six months ago that his chances of rejoining were 80%.  According to the new CAPR 35-5, he can't join my squadron now at the CMSgt grade.  He could have been our Leadership Officer and Testing Officer.  But apparently a CMSgt is overqualified.  I guess a Lt Col will have to do.  Why is the number of senior member Senior NCO's limited, unlike the officer grades?  It seems unfair.  What is the purpose of this limitation? I suspect that not all CAP SMSgt's and CMSgt's will always want to service in units higher than squadrons.

Also, why is there a requirement for a separate NCO Promotion Board in addition to the previously required Promotion Board?  The Officer Promotion Board is required to consist of PD, DP, and one additional member, with the chairperson at least equal to the promotion being reviewed?  On the other hand, we now have a requirement to have a NCO Promotion Board that must consist of the Unit Commander plus five additional members.  Couldn't the previously required Promotion Board meet the needs of reviewing NCO promotions?  After all, they were already reviewing 2d Lt through Lt Col promotions.

Lastly, why do prior military NCO's have to wait six months to be promoted to their CAP NCO grade?  That's not how the officer promotions are handled for prior military officers, and that's not how the NCO promotions were handled up until the new CAPR 35-5?  Before the new CAPR 35-5, both prior military officers and NCO's were eligible for promotion to their military grade upon completion of Level I.

Most of us are not likely to deal with these issues, but I'm really concerned about the two-tiered system, especially considering promotions are more restrictive for NCO's vs officers.

It can be argued that there is no need for the NCO system at all in CAP for adult members.

Because NCOs are the backbone of the new CAP.

Quote from: pierson777 on September 20, 2014, 03:19:35 AM
I'm curious if anyone here as any insight into to the "whys" of the CAPR 35-5 NCO promotion requirements. 

A former CAP CMSgt told me six months ago that his chances of rejoining were 80%.  According to the new CAPR 35-5, he can't join my squadron now at the CMSgt grade.  He could have been our Leadership Officer and Testing Officer.  But apparently a CMSgt is overqualified.  I guess a Lt Col will have to do.  Why is the number of senior member Senior NCO's limited, unlike the officer grades?  It seems unfair.  What is the purpose of this limitation? I suspect that not all CAP SMSgt's and CMSgt's will always want to service in units higher than squadrons.

A) we are not officers.  B) It is in keeping with AD USAF to limit the number of SMSgt and CMSgt to a percentage of the total enlisted force.   While this does not translate well to CAP it is a way to insure (or at least try to) that only the most deserving of NCOs are promoted to the top ranks.   If you don't want want to or can't serve at the higher responsible jobs.....then you don't deserve to higher ranks.   Service time at group/wing/region should be required for Major and above IMHO.

QuoteAlso, why is there a requirement for a separate NCO Promotion Board in addition to the previously required Promotion Board?  The Officer Promotion Board is required to consist of PD, DP, and one additional member, with the chairperson at least equal to the promotion being reviewed?  On the other hand, we now have a requirement to have a NCO Promotion Board that must consist of the Unit Commander plus five additional members.  Couldn't the previously required Promotion Board meet the needs of reviewing NCO promotions?  After all, they were already reviewing 2d Lt through Lt Col promotions.

Flat answer is NO the current system for officer promotions was not good enough for NCO promotions in the opinion of the NCO working group.

QuoteLastly, why do prior military NCO's have to wait six months to be promoted to their CAP NCO grade?  That's not how the officer promotions are handled for prior military officers, and that's not how the NCO promotions were handled up until the new CAPR 35-5?  Before the new CAPR 35-5, both prior military officers and NCO's were eligible for promotion to their military grade upon completion of Level I.

Again we are not CAP officers.   Secondly.....one should be in CAP for a little while before putting on the symbols of authority.   

QuoteMost of us are not likely to deal with these issues, but I'm really concerned about the two-tiered system, especially considering promotions are more restrictive for NCO's vs officers.

Well....it is a two tiered system......NCOs and Officers.    Even on active duty the way enlisted types are promoted is vastly different then the way officers are promoted.  Also remember it is only more restrictive at the higher ranks.   Like it should be.  Also remember that this is a work in progress.  We are still in the tail end of the first Phase of a three phase project.   If the current system is not working we will make changes as necessary.

One major change necessary is...

...finding an excuse as to why this is necessary...

An entire program being designed around a non-existent need, intended to fix an already bad situation,
which will only make it worse.

What is quite silly is CAP's decision to make the cutoff at E-5.

E-4's are noncommissioned officers in every service but the Air Force (Army Specialists aside; that rank name is a complete misnomer from what it was initially intended to be: an enlisted version of warrant officers).

Petty Officer Third Class (Navy and Coast Guard) - NCO.

Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.

Senior Airman (AF) - NCO.

CAP once had a full enlisted corps; I cannot fathom the reasoning behind partially bringing it back but cutting off at E-5.

If I could, I'd jack my Captain's bars and put on SrA stripes and gladly continue for another 20 years in CAP putting on stripes rather than bars and bottlecaps.

I remember when I first joined CAP, my ex-Army Specialist 4 dad (he'd been a Corporal in the National Guard, but they made him a SP4 when he went Active Army) looked at some of my CAP reading materials and said "it sounds like you've got more Chiefs than you do Indians."

Quote from: CyBorg on September 20, 2014, 04:33:38 AM
What is quite silly is CAP's decision to make the cutoff at E-5.

E-4's are noncommissioned officers in every service but the Air Force (Army Specialists aside; that rank name is a complete misnomer from what it was initially intended to be: an enlisted version of warrant officers).

Petty Officer Third Class (Navy and Coast Guard) - NCO.

Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.

Senior Airman (AF) - NCO.

CAP once had a full enlisted corps; I cannot fathom the reasoning behind partially bringing it back but cutting off at E-5.

If I could, I'd jack my Captain's bars and put on SrA stripes and gladly continue for another 20 years in CAP putting on stripes rather than bars and bottlecaps.

I remember when I first joined CAP, my ex-Army Specialist 4 dad (he'd been a Corporal in the National Guard, but they made him a SP4 when he went Active Army) looked at some of my CAP reading materials and said "it sounds like you've got more Chiefs than you do Indians."

Yes...but we are the USAF AXILLARY.....an E-4 from another service goes to the USAF he is a SrA.....even if he used to be an NCO.

When Phase three hits....you will be able to trade your Capt bars for SSgt stripes....we are just not there yet.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
One major change necessary is...

...finding an excuse as to why this is necessary...

An entire program being designed around a non-existent need, intended to fix an already bad situation,
which will only make it worse.

Maybe....just maybe....it is the first steps to fix "an already bad situation".
Maybe....just maybe.....in the future we will have an enlisted corps that the majority of CAP members belongs to and not everyone and his brother will be a Lt Col.

That you don't see the problem does not mean there is not one.   That you don't see the potential does not mean that there is not any.  I for one see this as a very good thing for CAP.  It will take a long time to make the shift....but I see this a good thing....and I'm not saying that just because I'm an NCO.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 04:41:42 AM
Maybe....just maybe.....in the future we will have an enlisted corps that the majority of CAP members belongs to and not everyone and his brother will be a Lt Col.

This is one of my admittedly-rare full agreements with you, Master Sergeant.  It just seems goofy to me to join an organisation, show up for six months and get handed officer rank.

At least the Navy Sea Cadets make you wait a year, and you have to study their introductory book and be tested on it before they put Ensign shoulder boards on you.

We've been talking about this for years.

No one has articulated a single need which cannot and is not being filled in the current system.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 04:41:42 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
One major change necessary is...

...finding an excuse as to why this is necessary...

An entire program being designed around a non-existent need, intended to fix an already bad situation,
which will only make it worse.

Maybe....just maybe....it is the first steps to fix "an already bad situation".
Maybe....just maybe.....in the future we will have an enlisted corps that the majority of CAP members belongs to and not everyone and his brother will be a Lt Col.

That you don't see the problem does not mean there is not one.   That you don't see the potential does not mean that there is not any.  I for one see this as a very good thing for CAP.  It will take a long time to make the shift....but I see this a good thing....and I'm not saying that just because I'm an NCO.

Pat, this is a solution looking for a problem and you know that too.

Actually I don't think that.

As a current AD NCO I for one do not see the need or the gap the NCO program is intended to fix.  It would receive more support if there was a clear cut explanation rather than just because or because that's how the AF works.  But again change for the sake of change is what NHQ loves best.  They must have read AAFES playbook and taken some pages from it.

Given that CAP NCOs are following the same professional development program as CAP officers, it seems to me that even those designing the NCO corps implicitly recognized that there is, in fact, no inherent difference in the two roles in CAP.

I have no opposition to having CAP NCOs, particularly because it is a way to meet the desires of experienced former military NCOs who have much to offer CAP...and who deserve some recognition from all of us for their dedicated, selfless service.

However, I still don't think CAP "needs" and NCO corps, nor in fact that this is the cure to any of CAP's problems.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 20, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
Given that CAP NCOs are following the same professional development program as CAP officers, it seems to me that even those designing the NCO corps implicitly recognized that there is, in fact, no inherent difference in the two roles in CAP.

I have no opposition to having CAP NCOs, particularly because it is a way to meet the desires of experienced former military NCOs who have much to offer CAP...and who deserve some recognition from all of us for their dedicated, selfless service.

However, I still don't think CAP "needs" and NCO corps, nor in fact that this is the cure to any of CAP's problems.

Phase II of the transition involves developing and implementing a different PD system the the officer side......so there will be a difference.

Quote from: pierson777 on September 20, 2014, 03:19:35 AM
According to the new CAPR 35-5, he can't join my squadron now at the CMSgt grade.

I don't believe that's necessarily true.

CAPR 35-5 states the following:

Quote from: CAPR 35-5, Para. 6-2aThe CAP initial grade granted will be equivalent to the grade held in the active duty military, Reserve or National Guard.

Quote from: CAPR 35-5, Para. 6-2cMembers who meet the eligibility requirement outlined above may assume a CAP NCO grade equivalent to their military grade upon presentation of documentation to the unit commander...

The higher headquarters duty position or manning criteria in Para. 6-3 and Figure 8 are for subsequent promotions. Furthermore, Para 6-3 states that the National Commander can grant waivers to the duty position requirement for MSgt, SMSgt and CMSgt.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 08:36:34 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 20, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
Given that CAP NCOs are following the same professional development program as CAP officers, it seems to me that even those designing the NCO corps implicitly recognized that there is, in fact, no inherent difference in the two roles in CAP.

I have no opposition to having CAP NCOs, particularly because it is a way to meet the desires of experienced former military NCOs who have much to offer CAP...and who deserve some recognition from all of us for their dedicated, selfless service.

However, I still don't think CAP "needs" and NCO corps, nor in fact that this is the cure to any of CAP's problems.

Phase II of the transition involves developing and implementing a different PD system the the officer side......so there will be a difference.

And where, exactly, is this multi-phase plan to radically alter CAP published?

It was in the white paper that the SECAF (or his deputy assistant) signed.

That wasn't a "plan", that was mostly "good" ideas.

Pet project of the former Nat/CC, doubt we will see full implementation of "plan"

I already started a thread a couple of months ago about this.
I say it will be gone inside of two years.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 08:36:34 PM
Phase II of the transition involves developing and implementing a different PD system the the officer side......so there will be a difference.

I had not heard that, has it been announced yet?

In any event, that's a step in the right direction.

Quote from: PHall on September 21, 2014, 01:41:56 AM
I already started a thread a couple of months ago about this.
I say it will be gone inside of two years.

While I agree with you, I dont think anything within this organization could possibly get done in 2 years. Five to seven I could believe, but two would be warp speed.

I want clarify some information that may have gotten garbled about the SNCO promotion quotas and how that relates to how many NCOs are allowed at each echelon.

There are no quotas for any one rank.   Any current or former SNCOs can, after six months of membership, can be appointed to their SNCO rank.  They DO NOT have to be in the one promotable billet.

The quota is only for promotion.  You get one.....and that individual must be assigned to the Squadron NCO position.  As of right now ESERVICE does not have the NCO positions in the duty assignments module.   I'm trying to find out if there is a fix date for that.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 04:41:42 AMMaybe....just maybe.....in the future we will have an enlisted corps that the majority of CAP members belongs to and not everyone and his brother will be a Lt Col.

I like the concept.  8)

Okay.  That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.  I missed the important difference between an appointment and a promotion.   The first time, it's a NCO appointment, then subsequent advancements are promotions.  That's good to know.  I needed the reminder. 

Quote from: pierson777 on October 11, 2014, 09:05:42 PM
Okay.  That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.  I missed the important difference between an appointment and a promotion.   The first time, it's a NCO appointment, then subsequent advancements are promotions.  That's good to know.  I needed the reminder.

But that raises another question...if an AD/Res/NG NCO gets promoted by their service, can they be promoted within CAP...because it's no longer an "appointment", but a promotion.

The answer is in CAPR 35-5.  See below.  The emphasis is my addition.
6-2c. Members who meet the eligibility requirement outlined above may assume a CAP NCO grade equivalent to their military grade upon presentation of documentation to the unit commander (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card or promotion order showing the grade requested is considered sufficient). The CAPF 2 will be annotated to reflect the NCO grade authorized and forward this form to National Headquarters for recording. Forms may be submitted by e-mail, fax or U.S. Postal Service as outlined in paragraph 1-8c(1) above. The member is authorized to wear the grade (CAP distinctive chevrons only) on the CAP uniform as soon as the NCO grade is reflected in eServices.

6-3. Subsequent Promotions. Subsequent promotions must meet the minimum skill level and time-in-grade requirements and be considered by the appropriate Promotion Board. Time-in grade requirements are based on the member's grade in CAP and is not affected by a currently serving member's time in military grade. Once a member enters the NCO program, promotion is based entirely on the above criteria and is not affected by a currently serving member's military promotion. Members eligible for promotion may only be promoted if selected for the identified in Figure 8. Where "any position" is listed, there are no limits to the number of members promotable to the respective grade. Promotion limits exist only for key NCO leadership positions. Promotions to the grade of CAP SSgt or TSgt are permanent. Promotions to the rank of CAP MSgt, SMSgt and CMSgt are temporary. Minimum tenure must be met before the grade becomes permanent. Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are non-waiverable. Request for waivers based on duty performance may be requested. The request should include a CAP Form 2 as well as letter of justification. All waivers to duty position requirements for the grades of senior NCOs (MSgt, SMSgt, CMSgt) must be submitted along with supporting documentation through the region commander to the National Commander.

Quote from: Lord of the North on October 11, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
6-3. Subsequent Promotions. Subsequent promotions must meet the minimum skill level and time-in-grade requirements and be considered by the appropriate Promotion Board. Time-in grade requirements are based on the member's grade in CAP and is not affected by a currently serving member's time in military grade. Once a member enters the NCO program, promotion is based entirely on the above criteria and is not affected by a currently serving member's military promotion. Members eligible for promotion may only be promoted if selected for the identified in Figure 8. Where "any position" is listed, there are no limits to the number of members promotable to the respective grade. Promotion limits exist only for key NCO leadership positions. Promotions to the grade of CAP SSgt or TSgt are permanent. Promotions to the rank of CAP MSgt, SMSgt and CMSgt are temporary. Minimum tenure must be met before the grade becomes permanent. Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are non-waiverable. Request for waivers based on duty performance may be requested. The request should include a CAP Form 2 as well as letter of justification. All waivers to duty position requirements for the grades of senior NCOs (MSgt, SMSgt, CMSgt) must be submitted along with supporting documentation through the region commander to the National Commander.

Wow. Seriously, wow.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2014, 10:48:09 PM

Quote from: Lord of the North on October 11, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
6-3. Subsequent Promotions. Subsequent promotions must meet the minimum skill level and time-in-grade requirements and be considered by the appropriate Promotion Board. Time-in grade requirements are based on the member's grade in CAP and is not affected by a currently serving member's time in military grade. Once a member enters the NCO program, promotion is based entirely on the above criteria and is not affected by a currently serving member's military promotion. Members eligible for promotion may only be promoted if selected for the identified in Figure 8. Where "any position" is listed, there are no limits to the number of members promotable to the respective grade. Promotion limits exist only for key NCO leadership positions. Promotions to the grade of CAP SSgt or TSgt are permanent. Promotions to the rank of CAP MSgt, SMSgt and CMSgt are temporary. Minimum tenure must be met before the grade becomes permanent. Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are non-waiverable. Request for waivers based on duty performance may be requested. The request should include a CAP Form 2 as well as letter of justification. All waivers to duty position requirements for the grades of senior NCOs (MSgt, SMSgt, CMSgt) must be submitted along with supporting documentation through the region commander to the National Commander.

Wow. Seriously, wow.

That was one of my issues with the new NCO program as well.  CAP officers may advance their CAP grade as they advance their military grade. So, why can't NCO's advance their CAP grade as they advance their military grade?  This combined with the six month time-in-grade as a SM before appointment plus the limited numbers of promotable positions per unit, makes it seem like a two tiered system.  Was that the intent? 

I can only speculate that this could be a bit de-motivational for NCO's.  They created more limitations for NCO promotions, and they created more complexities in the administrative process.  Ultimately, this detracts from the most important functions and activities of CAP which is our three missions; including mission training and mission readiness.

The intent was to make it a two tiered system.

The rules for officer promotions don't apply to the NCO corps....so any comparison is not applicable.....just like it is on active duty.

As for the reasoning for the six month wait (and this is just my own speculation...I was not part of the team at that time) is a) that they don't want to give anyone a position of authority in CAP until they have spent at least six months learning the ropes and seeing how CAP does things. b) Ultimately we are going to open up the NCO corps to anyone in CAP even those who do not have prior military experience....this allows them time to learn about being and NCO.

As for the limitations on NCO promotions.....again comparing it with the CAP officer corps.....we don't want to promote people to the top ranks unless they have done some time at the appropriate level for that rank.   It is possible now to make Lt Col with out ever holding a leadership job in CAP beyond Assistant Squadron XYZ Officer.   We don't want that to happen in the NCO corps.   If down the road we have a bunch of people climbing over each other competing for that one open job at group/wing/region.....then maybe we may rethink about the promotable duty positions.

Beyond that....the only thing that is more complex is the concept that they only hold promotion boards for squadron level NCO's once a year....which actually reduces the administration over head.   Yes it means that some NCO's may have to wait 11 months from the time they become eligible to when they meet the board.....but this is modeling the way that the USAF does business and they do okay by it.

Pat, the one thing I have a problem with is that a military commissioned officer can be promoted in CAP when they get promoted in the military.
Just produce that new CAC card and bingo, you're promoted up to O-5.
This new system for the NCO's does not allow that.  Why are we discriminating against NCO's?  If it's good for the O's it should be good for the E's.

Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 02:09:01 AM
Pat, the one thing I have a problem with is that a military commissioned officer can be promoted in CAP when they get promoted in the military.
Just produce that new CAC card and bingo, you're promoted up to O-5.
This new system for the NCO's does not allow that.  Why are we discriminating against NCO's?  If it's good for the O's it should be good for the E's.

My thinking is....and again this is speculation or maybe reading too much into the white paper....but in the future that option for the O's may go away.

And yes....we are discriminating against NCOs...we want to make getting to the top rank in CAP NCO corps as hard as we can...so that the top ranks mean something.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 02:30:15 AMin the future that option for the O's may go away.

Never.

Happen.

Ever.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 02:30:15 AM...so that the top ranks mean something.

Yes..."something"...

Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2014, 02:49:45 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 02:30:15 AMin the future that option for the O's may go away.

Never.

Happen.

Ever.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 02:30:15 AM...so that the top ranks mean something.

Yes..."something"...

And your problem with that is?

With what, the "new" NCO "program"? 

It's wasted time, wasted effort, accomplishes nothing but making things worse, and
takes attention away from where it needs to be.

Otherwise, whatever.

CAP needs a reboot, I've said that about 100 times.  It needs to restructure the grades,
or better still, eliminate it altogether, but doing it piecemeal, with double-secret "programs"
that create another unneeded tier of membership, with no way to parcel jobs in the
NCO/Officer way within a volunteer organization, isn't the way you do it.

Nor is creating a new tier of volunteers members who think their grade somehow has "weight"
who are still subordinate to other volunteers whose grade has none, yet are in command
over the "real" members wearing stripes.

The double-think there is astonishing.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2014, 03:02:33 AM
With what, the "new" NCO "program"? 

It's wasted time, wasted effort, accomplishes nothing but making things worse, and
takes attention away from where it needs to be.

Otherwise, whatever.

My time to waste....I disagree that that it makes things worse.....IMHO it opens the door to fix a lot of the problems with CAP's rank system.   

Takes who's attention from what exactly?

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 03:06:09 AM
Takes who's attention from what exactly?

Everything and anything which is a distraction from fixing the trendlines is unacceptable.

CAP had the attention of the USAF C-Level and squandered it discussing uniforms and
a "new" grade structure which won't outline our current CC.

Maybe you'll understand when CAP Talk becomes an alumni board.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2014, 03:09:47 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 03:06:09 AM
Takes who's attention from what exactly?

Everything and anything which is a distraction from fixing the trendlines is unacceptable.

CAP had the attention of the USAF C-Level and squandered it discussing uniforms and
a "new" grade structure which won't outline our current CC.

Maybe you'll understand when CAP Talk becomes an alumni board.

You are back to your old tag line....CAP is doomed!   That get a little boring after awhile.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 03:12:49 AM
You are back to your old tag line....CAP is doomed!   That get a little boring after awhile.

I'm sorry if the facts and data disagree with how you, and many others, wish CAP were doing.

Unfortunately, "wishing" won't fixing things, nor will hoping some savior shows up and fixes
things for us, nor will "rebranding" CAP.

The only thing that will fix things is accepting how bands things have gotten, making difficult,
painful choices, and a lot of brute-force effort by people reestablishing relationships and shoring up the walls.

If you started today, you don't see results before 2018-2020, and that's if you start today.

Meanwhile, the world isn't waiting to see how the story ends.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 02:30:15 AM

Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 02:09:01 AM
Pat, the one thing I have a problem with is that a military commissioned officer can be promoted in CAP when they get promoted in the military.
Just produce that new CAC card and bingo, you're promoted up to O-5.
This new system for the NCO's does not allow that.  Why are we discriminating against NCO's?  If it's good for the O's it should be good for the E's.

My thinking is....and again this is speculation or maybe reading too much into the white paper....but in the future that option for the O's may go away.

And yes....we are discriminating against NCOs...we want to make getting to the top rank in CAP NCO corps as hard as we can...so that the top ranks mean something.

From what your saying (perhaps speculating), it is inferred that they created more restrictions making it harder to promote in the hopes that someday later the officer promotion standards would also become more restrictive and difficult?  Why couldn't they just create promotion system that mirrored the current PD level and time-in-grade requirements for duty performance promotions for officers.  Then perhaps someday later, both NCO and officer duty performance promotions could change at the same time...if they ever do.  If they don't change, then the NCO promotion system will forever be more difficult than the officer's.  This is how I would like to see it :


Level I:   2d Lt   or   SSgt    NCO appointment as soon as Level I is complete
Level II:  1st Lt  or   TSgt    same time-in-grade for officer and NCO
Level III: Capt   or   MSgt    same time-in-grade for officer and NCO
Level IV:  Maj    or   SMSgt  same time-in-grade for officer and NCO
Level V:   Lt Col or   CMSgt  same time-in-grade for officer and NCO

If we did it that way, shy bother to do it all?  It is more than just a hope that the officer system would change.  Revamping the NCO program is just the first step in changing the officer ranks.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 03:26:39 AM
If we did it that way, shy bother to do it all?  It is more than just a hope that the officer system would change.  Revamping the NCO program is just the first step in changing the officer ranks.

So that NCO's can promote.  I thought that was the whole point of creating the NCO promotions system?  What other reason could there possibly be?  We already had a promotion system in place.  Why not just get on board with that system?  When it changes, we all change.  Simple as that.

If you give people something to strive for, set goals, accomplish, etc.,  then they might do more professional development and specialty track advancement.   Then CAP would have higher number of knowledgeable and hopefully more capable members that would stick around longer than one or two years.

As far as change in the officer promotion system, I had a conversation in person with someone from membership services about this.   I was told that there was a strong consideration to change the whole PD and promotion system, and it was expected within two years.  That conversation happened nine years ago, and we just saw the first change two months ago.  Are you expecting more changes, and what specific, first hand knowledge do you have to support it?

Creating a promotion system is only one step in creating an enlisted corps.....and you have to have that if you are going to change the requirements for becoming an officer.

This is all spelled out in the the white paper that started this all off last year.

Yes it is going to take a long time.

You are right that having goals for people to strive for is something that would encourage them to do more PD and take on the hard jobs.   We got that in the NCO promotion system.....but not in the officer system.

You can get your level 5 with out having to do much of anything outside of the squadron.
You can get your Master Level in most specialty tracks with our ever doing anything outside of the squadron.

Wanting to focus on just the squadron is fine.....no not just fine, but admirable, but should you be a Lt Col or a CMSgt? 
Personally I don't think so.   Getting to the top ranks should not be something you get for just hanging around.

We have already seen some changes on the officer side with the requirement to get NSC and Level V to be eligible for Lt Col.  I think this is a wonderful idea.   

Most wings make Major the hard stop on "squadron only" promotions.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 12, 2014, 04:32:10 AM
Most wings make Major the hard stop on "squadron only" promotions.

Not by regulation.....nor across all of CAP.   I agree in principle to that policy....I would like to see it in a regulation.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 05:06:02 AM

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 12, 2014, 04:32:10 AM
Most wings make Major the hard stop on "squadron only" promotions.

Not by regulation.....nor across all of CAP.   I agree in principle to that policy....I would like to see it in a regulation.

It was way back in the 50's and 60's. The grade quotas went away in the 70's.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 04:30:08 AM
This is all spelled out in the the white paper that started this all off last year.

I never heard of the white paper to which you refer, so I never read it.  I'd like to.  Where is it published?  How is the general membership suppose to know about a white paper.  Honestly I never heard of a white paper till just now.  I had to look it up.  The USAF has something called a talking paper that seems to be the same thing.  I wonder why CAP doesn't call it a talking paper instead of a white paper.

Here is the white paper.

And for the record....a White Paper is usually an a report to help the reader make a decision, understand an issue, or solve a problem.

Talking paper is sort of a condensed white paper.

Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2014, 02:09:01 AM
the one thing I have a problem with is that a military commissioned officer can be promoted in CAP when they get promoted in the military.
Just produce that new CAC card and bingo, you're promoted up to O-5.

You COULD be promoted, but no one is required to promote you. 

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 06:28:35 AM
Here is the white paper.

And for the record....a White Paper is usually an a report to help the reader make a decision, understand an issue, or solve a problem.

Talking paper is sort of a condensed white paper.

The majority of the assumptions and assertions on the summary page are incorrect, or improperly characterized.

The rest of it builds on these assumptions, to incorrect conclusions.

But you knew that.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 06:28:35 AM
Here is the white paper.

And for the record....a White Paper is usually an a report to help the reader make a decision, understand an issue, or solve a problem.

Talking paper is sort of a condensed white paper.

I'd like to learn more about this.  Does USAF have anything to describe the white paper?  They never taught me anything about it, and didn't see it in the Tongue and Quill.

Not usually something done in the Air Force. Thanking papers are usually as deep as they go. The white paper is usually all the support that you would use to write the talking paper.

Quote from: pierson777 on October 12, 2014, 04:00:45 AM

So that NCO's can promote.  I thought that was the whole point of creating the NCO promotions system? 

that's kinda the point.  The NCO Program is a solution in desperate search of a problem.

Quote from: pierson777 on October 12, 2014, 01:03:57 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2014, 10:48:09 PM

Quote from: Lord of the North on October 11, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
6-3. Subsequent Promotions. Subsequent promotions must meet the minimum skill level and time-in-grade requirements and be considered by the appropriate Promotion Board. Time-in grade requirements are based on the member's grade in CAP and is not affected by a currently serving member's time in military grade. Once a member enters the NCO program, promotion is based entirely on the above criteria and is not affected by a currently serving member's military promotion. Members eligible for promotion may only be promoted if selected for the identified in Figure 8. Where "any position" is listed, there are no limits to the number of members promotable to the respective grade. Promotion limits exist only for key NCO leadership positions. Promotions to the grade of CAP SSgt or TSgt are permanent. Promotions to the rank of CAP MSgt, SMSgt and CMSgt are temporary. Minimum tenure must be met before the grade becomes permanent. Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are non-waiverable. Request for waivers based on duty performance may be requested. The request should include a CAP Form 2 as well as letter of justification. All waivers to duty position requirements for the grades of senior NCOs (MSgt, SMSgt, CMSgt) must be submitted along with supporting documentation through the region commander to the National Commander.

Wow. Seriously, wow.

That was one of my issues with the new NCO program as well.  CAP officers may advance their CAP grade as they advance their military grade. So, why can't NCO's advance their CAP grade as they advance their military grade?  This combined with the six month time-in-grade as a SM before appointment plus the limited numbers of promotable positions per unit, makes it seem like a two tiered system.  Was that the intent? 

I can only speculate that this could be a bit de-motivational for NCO's.  They created more limitations for NCO promotions, and they created more complexities in the administrative process.  Ultimately, this detracts from the most important functions and activities of CAP which is our three missions; including mission training and mission readiness.

For every problem there is a solution - Expire for 90 days, rejoin and get appointed to the new grade... >:D

Based on Phase II and III of the white paper under the implementation plan, I would guess there is going to be a degree requirement for CAP officers at some point.

"Redefine the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program"

I know this has been a discussion point in the past.

Under Phase I - Recruitment would have been smoother if there had been a conversion matrix based on the former NCO's prior military service + their training and advancement to date in CAP.  Especially in light of the fact, that you won't allow them to wear their former grade until after 6 months, because they need experience in CAP.   Many former NCOs that might have been interested, may not be without credit for what they have already achieved in CAP.

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 05:36:54 PM
Based on Phase II and III of the white paper under the implementation plan, I would guess there is going to be a degree requirement for CAP officers at some point.

"Redefine the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program"

I know this has been a discussion point in the past.

They want us to have a degree the org can pay for it.

No, they may just want officers with degrees.  If you want to be an officer.... if you don't....

Quote from: RiverAux on October 13, 2014, 05:59:12 PM
No, they may just want officers with degrees.  If you want to be an officer.... if you don't....

If they want officers to hold degrees the org can pay for it.  Having a degree does not make someone a better leader or officer.

That makes no sense at all.

Like they pay for people to earn their pilot's licenses because we want pilots?

I don't particularly support this idea, but it isn't crazy.

Why doesn't CAP ever reach for the affectation of the parts of the military that would actually benefit it
or the membership?

Raise the bar on who can serve as staff and commanders?  I'm there with you, let's do it today, by
holding people to expectations of performance and training them INTERNALLY >BEFORE< they
get the prime job.

Anything CAP expects of the membership in terms of training or education, it should be providing to
its members, otherwise you break the entirety of the ROI, not to mention shrink your membership
pool  even further.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2014, 06:46:23 PM
Why doesn't CAP ever reach for the affectation of the parts of the military that would actually benefit it
or the membership?

Raise the bar on who can serve as staff and commanders?  I'm there with you, let's do it today, by
holding people to expectations of performance and training them INTERNALLY >BEFORE< they
get the prime job.

Anything CAP expects of the membership in terms of training or education, it should be providing to
its members, otherwise you break the entirety of the ROI, not to mention shrink your membership
pool  even further.

Bingo.  If my employer requires me to have something to do my job they provide it no ifs, ands, or butts.  Got told I was required to have steel toe boots imply because every now and then I would go out on the flight line, told them you're buying them I'm not coming out of pocket.  I've seen alot of silly nonsense in this org especially on the ES side of things and when I pose the question to those folks of are you buying it for me or them they turn around and run. 

This is a really bad, Godwin's-Law evoking comparison, but I think it shows the two-tiered disconnect between CAP rank and serving military rank.

An AF SSgt accepts the grade of CAP SSgt.  However, SSgt Stripes is promoted to TSgt, and subsequently MSgt, in the Air Force (or ANG, or AFRES).  However,  SSgt Stripes may still be an SSgt in CAP, because s/he may not have met CAP requirements for promotion.  MSgt Stripes, USAF/AFRES/ANG, scratches his/her head over "what's wrong with this picture?"

Those of you who are history buffs know that in WWII, Hitler's personal band of merry thugs, the SS, had several different divisions, though nearly identical uniforms and ranks.

There was such a disconnect between the Allgemeine-SS ("general" SS, who mostly manned the death/concentration camps) and Waffen-SS ("armed" SS, the "battlefield" SS) that it was possible to hold wildly disparate ranks between the two.

If you were a member of both the Wf-SS and Alg-SS, you could hold such differing ranks as SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) in the Wf-SS and Scharführer (approximately Sergeant) in the Alg-SS...thereby outranking yourself!

Then, of course, if you were also in the Gestapo or Ordnungspolizei, also controlled by the SS, you could have so many different ranks you wouldn't know which on-base club you could go in to trink ein Bier.

Of course, CAP is by no means the SS and I don't intend to infer that at all...my point is the confusion between what rank who holds where.

And then if you are also in the CGAUX (which has "offices," but with quasi-rank insignia), your SDF, etc., the confusion can be even worse.

I think one needs to only look at the college hour requirements (not even degree) and what it has done to the CDI program (at least in my area- I am sure some will offer glowing reviews of thriving programs) to see what that type of requirement would do. I really don't think NHQ wants their membership dues to dry up that fast. As to everyone switching to NCO- just the opposite happened here. All but one NCO- in the entire wing- went officer.

There is zero confusion between CAP ranks and other military ranks.  CAP rank only matters to CAP members.  The rank of members of the federal military while in uniform does matter to CAP members for C&C purposes only. 

I find that I have no trouble distinguishing the different ranks that I hold in different organizations and if anyone actually has trouble with it, I'd probably prefer that they leave CAP as they obviously have some problems.  It ain't that hard. 

Though as I am one that believes that CAP shouldn't give preferential treatment to members of any organization in terms of their CAP rank, I'm obviously biased.

Captain Whelan, I am probably unpromotable past my current rank of Captain.  My health issues preclude my meeting a lot of the requirements.

If I could switch to NCO and be promotable, with different requirements, I would do so in the blink of an eye.

However, I cannot because the cutoff is E-5...lower it to E-4 (SrA) and I'd be quite pleased to turn in my railway tracks and silver-braided flight cap.

Cyborg- the problem isn't that my NCO's didn't want to be NCO's- like you they wanted to- the problem was the design. I also have an E9 who is a Major and he is very critical of the new regulations. FYI, I was enlisted Navy before all else.

Quote from: CyBorg on October 13, 2014, 08:29:33 PM
This is a really bad, Godwin's-Law evoking comparison, but I think it shows the two-tiered disconnect between CAP rank and serving military rank.

An AF SSgt accepts the grade of CAP SSgt.  However, SSgt Stripes is promoted to TSgt, and subsequently MSgt, in the Air Force (or ANG, or AFRES).  However,  SSgt Stripes may still be an SSgt in CAP, because s/he may not have met CAP requirements for promotion.  MSgt Stripes, USAF/AFRES/ANG, scratches his/her head over "what's wrong with this picture?"

Those of you who are history buffs know that in WWII, Hitler's personal band of merry thugs, the SS, had several different divisions, though nearly identical uniforms and ranks.

There was such a disconnect between the Allgemeine-SS ("general" SS, who mostly manned the death/concentration camps) and Waffen-SS ("armed" SS, the "battlefield" SS) that it was possible to hold wildly disparate ranks between the two.

If you were a member of both the Wf-SS and Alg-SS, you could hold such differing ranks as SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) in the Wf-SS and Scharführer (approximately Sergeant) in the Alg-SS...thereby outranking yourself!

Then, of course, if you were also in the Gestapo or Ordnungspolizei, also controlled by the SS, you could have so many different ranks you wouldn't know which on-base club you could go in to trink ein Bier.

Of course, CAP is by no means the SS and I don't intend to infer that at all...my point is the confusion between what rank who holds where.

And then if you are also in the CGAUX (which has "offices," but with quasi-rank insignia), your SDF, etc., the confusion can be even worse.

This was by no means unique to Germany or the SS.

The US had a very similar arrangement.  The "Army of the United States" (AUS) was established during World War II (not to be confused with the US Army).  It was the "expeditionary force" that was in theater.  This led to many officers holding a permanent rank in the US Army, and a Theater rank in the AUS.  Eisenhower for example held a permanent rank of Colonel in the US Army, but as we all know, ended up as a General of the Army in the AUS.  At the end of the war, the AUS was disestablished and officers reverted to their permanent rank unless they were granted promotions within the regular army.

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 05:36:54 PM
Under Phase I - Recruitment would have been smoother if there had been a conversion matrix based on the former NCO's prior military service + their training and advancement to date in CAP.  Especially in light of the fact, that you won't allow them to wear their former grade until after 6 months, because they need experience in CAP.   Many former NCOs that might have been interested, may not be without credit for what they have already achieved in CAP.

Cyborg, that is exactly what I was talking about in my last paragraph.  You were an E-4 in the military, but you've achieved the rank of captain plus umpteen years of CAP service.  There should be a conversion matrix that 's based on CAP service + Military service for current members that want to convert to CAP NCO.

As a Captain that is Level 3 complete I would assume, I don't see why NHQ couldn't have generated a set of screening criteria for which to determine an NCO grade commensurate with both your military and CAP service together. 

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 08:48:32 PMCyborg, that is exactly what I was talking about in my last paragraph.  You were an E-4 in the military, but you've achieved the rank of captain plus umpteen years of CAP service.  There should be a conversion matrix that 's based on CAP service + Military service for current members that want to convert to CAP NCO.

What, exact purpose would that solve in a CAP context?

How many officers in the active services would willingly convert to an NCO or enlisted grade unless
they were threatened with separation, or to take a very specific and coveted job?

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2014, 08:52:58 PM

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 08:48:32 PMCyborg, that is exactly what I was talking about in my last paragraph.  You were an E-4 in the military, but you've achieved the rank of captain plus umpteen years of CAP service.  There should be a conversion matrix that 's based on CAP service + Military service for current members that want to convert to CAP NCO.

What, exact purpose would that solve in a CAP context?

How many officers in the active services would willingly convert to an NCO or enlisted grade unless
they were threatened with separation, or to take a very specific and coveted job?

This is comment straight off the white paper.  I'm not saying it accomplishes anything.  However, the white paper does clearly state a set of objectives.  And his desire to swap meets one of those objectives.

Many say this is a solution without a problem.  Maybe.  But, why does a problem have to exist for the program to evolve.  Many units push cadets, too quickly into the cadet officer ranks, or simply don't allow cadet NCO's any opportunity to demonstrate leadership potential.  Having quality senior NCOs in every unit could teach cadets the value of the American military NCO.  I would say that is value added.

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 09:05:26 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2014, 08:52:58 PM

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 08:48:32 PMCyborg, that is exactly what I was talking about in my last paragraph.  You were an E-4 in the military, but you've achieved the rank of captain plus umpteen years of CAP service.  There should be a conversion matrix that 's based on CAP service + Military service for current members that want to convert to CAP NCO.

What, exact purpose would that solve in a CAP context?

How many officers in the active services would willingly convert to an NCO or enlisted grade unless
they were threatened with separation, or to take a very specific and coveted job?

This is comment straight off the white paper.  I'm not saying it accomplishes anything.  However, the white paper does clearly state a set of objectives.  And his desire to swap meets one of those objectives.

Yes, the paper has objectives, however the majority of them are either based on a flawed premise, or are circular (i.e. we must have NCOs, because if we don't,
we won't have NCOs).

Beyond the same kind of meaningless rhetoric that the CAC pamphlet provides in regards to duty and purpose,
no one, literally none, has been able to articulate a single duty that members can perform only when wearing stripes,
even the program's most ardent supporters.

As part of a total reboot of the entirety of the grade and authority structure, there may be some value here,
but implemented piecemeal, this will only serve to waste a lot of time, and/or alienate a lot of members, reduce
the potential recruiting pool, and further divide the membership into a caste structure with ZERO BENEFIT.

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 09:05:26 PM
Many say this is a solution without a problem.  Maybe.  But, why does a problem have to exist for the program to evolve.  Many units push cadets, too quickly into the cadet officer ranks, or simply don't allow cadet NCO's any opportunity to demonstrate leadership potential.  Having quality senior NCOs in every unit could teach cadets the value of the American military NCO.  I would say that is value added.

Please do not start the "NCO Experience" rhetoric.  Grade is primarily a time marker for cadets.  Few units have the
numbers to offer the legitimate follower and leader models for cadets in a grade-appropriate way, and most cadets
don't linger in a grade long enough to experience it, any way, especially in Phase 1 & 2.

You may be surprised by the number of real military NCO's who also hold reserve commissions.  For example, when I went to MEPS, I was processed by an Army E-6 who administered my enlistment oath as an Reserve Army O-3.

I understand that this is because  when officers in the lower grades are R.I.F.'d they are (sometimes) given the opportunity to enlist at an advanced pay-grade, but simultaneously hold a reserve commission and will receive their retirement at the highest pay-grade attained.   

If the "real military" doesn't have a problem with simultaneously holding both officer and enlisted grade, why should we?

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 08:48:32 PM
As a Captain that is Level 3 complete I would assume, I don't see why NHQ couldn't have generated a set of screening criteria for which to determine an NCO grade commensurate with both your military and CAP service together.

Level 3, much of Level 4, and approximately the following years of service in CAP:

1993-2001
(1997-1999 unit Deputy Commander)

2004-2006

2007-Present

Others know of my issues with why I cannot/probably will not be promoted (mostly health-related), so I will not reiterate them here, though I can PM you if you like.

I would like warrant officer grades to be reinstated (the Air Force does not have them, so there would be no confusion) for those (like me) who are job-specific and have no desire/ability to run the show.  However, that will not happen.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 06:28:35 AM
Here is the white paper.

And for the record....a White Paper is usually an a report to help the reader make a decision, understand an issue, or solve a problem.

Talking paper is sort of a condensed white paper.

The length of implementation makes a great deal of sense.

If I read this correctly, non-prior military NCO eligibility is at least 3 to 4 years away.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 13, 2014, 11:39:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 12, 2014, 06:28:35 AM
Here is the white paper.

And for the record....a White Paper is usually an a report to help the reader make a decision, understand an issue, or solve a problem.

Talking paper is sort of a condensed white paper.

The length of implementation makes a great deal of sense.

If I read this correctly, non-prior military NCO eligibility is at least 3 to 4 years away.

At least.   
We are still in phase I at this time.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2014, 12:07:53 AM
We are still in phase I at this time.

So is Mars One.

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 05:36:54 PM
Under Phase I - Recruitment would have been smoother if there had been a conversion matrix based on the former NCO's prior military service + their training and advancement to date in CAP.  Especially in light of the fact, that you won't allow them to wear their former grade until after 6 months, because they need experience in CAP.   Many former NCOs that might have been interested, may not be without credit for what they have already achieved in CAP.

You bring up a good point.  Do you have any ideas of what that matrix would look like?

I have said it before and I shall say it again...

With the change in command at NHQ, this pet project of the former CC will not progress much further.

We have seen a few items already be toned down, this will be no different.

CAP has so so many other issues on the table than worry about an "NCO corps" with very little (or none at all) purpose.

Missions, a real strategic direction, retention and recruiting, mainstream funding outside the line budget...

Quote from: abdsp51 on October 13, 2014, 06:01:28 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on October 13, 2014, 05:59:12 PM
No, they may just want officers with degrees.  If you want to be an officer.... if you don't....

If they want officers to hold degrees the org can pay for it.  Having a degree does not make someone a better leader or officer.

You have a better ideal than the "good ole boy network"? Now if the guy/gal is a leader, I take it to mean they are a Squadron Commander but how many CAP officers have never been a Commander much less a "satisfactory" Commander.   ::)

Quote from: CyBorg on October 13, 2014, 10:31:06 PM... I would like warrant officer grades to be reinstated (the Air Force does not have them, so there would be no confusion) for those (like me) who are job-specific and have no desire/ability to run the show.  However, that will not happen.

What is wrong with NCOs. The downside to WO is a third to half the SQ will be WOs. For those upset with college degree requirements, anyone who is a pilot should be a officer just like lawyers, doctors and chaplains. The only other CAP officers should be Commanders and former Commanders.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AMWhat is wrong with NCOs.

In a CAP context, the paradigm and caste system of the NCO/Officer relationship doesn't exist, CAN'T exist,
and will be detrimental to good order and discipline to try and force the division between volunteers.
As it exists, grade confers no authority whatsoever, yet those espousing an NCO program in CAP contend
that NCOs would be the backbone of CAP and are critical to its longterm success.

This despite no studies, demographics data or any information made public about the pool of new members
who are not available to CAP today unless they can wear stripes and function in an actual NCO role.  Everyone
reading this >knows< this is not the case today.

Absent authority, this is an exercise in wasting time and making people feel good, to zero benefit and significant risk.
it also sets up a class of members who feel their grade somehow trumps other vounteers, yet with no authority to excercise.
>With< authority, it is a timebomb waiting to happen.  I want to be a fly on the wall the first time a New 2nd Lt with
wet bars tells a Chief to take out the garbage, or sweep the floors.  Think that won't happen?  It happens today
between Lt Cols, ALL THE TIME.   Good luck with that.

Is CAP's plan to light up OTS' and NCOAs all over the country and hold all members to a year of training
before they get to do anything in CAP? Great.  In the meantime the organization is shrinking and
there's been no pool of people identified who are just waiting to go to school for CAP so they
can give their time for free.

Further, anything which gives license for one class of membership to feel empowered to specialize while
another class is expected to generalize, makes things worse, reduces the total manpower, and again
will create move division in ranks then we have today.

CAP is 30-50% or more under-manned to even consider the idea of dividing the members between officers and NCOs
beyond the nod to other service it given today.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
The downside to WO is a third to half the SQ will be WOs. For those upset with college degree requirements, anyone who is a pilot should be a officer just like lawyers, doctors and chaplains. The only other CAP officers should be Commanders and former Commanders.

No matter what title you give the rank and file, 1/3rd to 1/2 half or more of the membership will be that "thing".
Pilots are the very definition of specialists (if that is all they do), and therefore would also be the definition of
either WOs or FOs.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 14, 2014, 03:35:05 AM

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AMWhat is wrong with NCOs.

In a CAP context, the paradigm and caste system of the NCO/Officer relationship doesn't exist, CAN'T exist,
and will be detrimental to good order and discipline to try and force the division between volunteers.
As it exists, grade confers no authority whatsoever, yet those espousing an NCO program in CAP contend
that NCOs would be the backbone of CAP and are critical to its longterm success.

This despite no studies, demographics data or any information made public about the pool of new members
who are not available to CAP today unless they can wear stripes and function in an actual NCO role.  Everyone
reading this >knows< this is not the case today.

Absent authority, this is an exercise in wasting time and making people feel good, to zero benefit and significant risk.
it also sets up a class of members who feel their grade somehow trumps other vounteers, yet with no authority to excercise.
>With< authority, it is a timebomb waiting to happen.  I want to be a fly on the wall the first time a New 2nd Lt with
wet bars tells a Chief to take out the garbage, or sweep the floors.  Think that won't happen?  It happens today
between Lt Cols, ALL THE TIME.   Good luck with that.

Is CAP's plan to light up OTS' and NCOAs all over the country and hold all members to a year of training
before they get to do anything in CAP? Great.  In the meantime the organization is shrinking and
there's been no pool of people identified who are just waiting to go to school for CAP so they
can give their time for free.

Further, anything which gives license for one class of membership to feel empowered to specialize while
another class is expected to generalize, makes things worse, reduces the total manpower, and again
will create move division in ranks then we have today.

CAP is 30-50% or more under-manned to even consider the idea of dividing the members between officers and NCOs
beyond the nod to other service it given today.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
The downside to WO is a third to half the SQ will be WOs. For those upset with college degree requirements, anyone who is a pilot should be a officer just like lawyers, doctors and chaplains. The only other CAP officers should be Commanders and former Commanders.

No matter what title you give the rank and file, 1/3rd to 1/2 half or more of the membership will be that "thing".
Pilots are the very definition of specialists (if that is all they do), and therefore would also be the definition of
either WOs or FOs.

Well I guess you support the status quo? Neverless nothing is wrong with brainstorming an ideal.   8)

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:50:44 AM
Well I guess you support the status quo? Neverless nothing is wrong with brainstorming an ideal.   8)

No, absolutely not, but you can't do this piecemeal when you don't have members to shed.

End-to-end reboot?  Let's talk, because the attrition is ultimately worth the risk, but in this case there is
no demonstrable benefit, nor even an indicated purpose.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2014, 12:13:26 AM

Quote from: catrulz on October 13, 2014, 05:36:54 PM
Under Phase I - Recruitment would have been smoother if there had been a conversion matrix based on the former NCO's prior military service + their training and advancement to date in CAP.  Especially in light of the fact, that you won't allow them to wear their former grade until after 6 months, because they need experience in CAP.   Many former NCOs that might have been interested, may not be without credit for what they have already achieved in CAP.

You bring up a good point.  Do you have any ideas of what that matrix would look like?

Lordmonar,

I created a matrix as a starting point, with the idea of crediting the former enlisted person with their accumulated CAP service and training.    Unfortunately, can't attach it to this message.  If you PM me I would be willing to e-mail it to you.

In the former case of Cyborg with his years of service, and holding the rank of CAPT as a former E4, he should convert as a minimum of TSGT.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 14, 2014, 03:35:05 AM

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AMWhat is wrong with NCOs.

In a CAP context, the paradigm and caste system of the NCO/Officer relationship doesn't exist, CAN'T exist,
and will be detrimental to good order and discipline to try and force the division between volunteers.
As it exists, grade confers no authority whatsoever, yet those espousing an NCO program in CAP contend
that NCOs would be the backbone of CAP and are critical to its longterm success.

This despite no studies, demographics data or any information made public about the pool of new members
who are not available to CAP today unless they can wear stripes and function in an actual NCO role.  Everyone
reading this >knows< this is not the case today.

Absent authority, this is an exercise in wasting time and making people feel good, to zero benefit and significant risk.
it also sets up a class of members who feel their grade somehow trumps other vounteers, yet with no authority to excercise.
>With< authority, it is a timebomb waiting to happen.  I want to be a fly on the wall the first time a New 2nd Lt with
wet bars tells a Chief to take out the garbage, or sweep the floors.  Think that won't happen?  It happens today
between Lt Cols, ALL THE TIME.   Good luck with that.

Is CAP's plan to light up OTS' and NCOAs all over the country and hold all members to a year of training
before they get to do anything in CAP? Great.  In the meantime the organization is shrinking and
there's been no pool of people identified who are just waiting to go to school for CAP so they
can give their time for free.

Further, anything which gives license for one class of membership to feel empowered to specialize while
another class is expected to generalize, makes things worse, reduces the total manpower, and again
will create move division in ranks then we have today.

CAP is 30-50% or more under-manned to even consider the idea of dividing the members between officers and NCOs
beyond the nod to other service it given today.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
The downside to WO is a third to half the SQ will be WOs. For those upset with college degree requirements, anyone who is a pilot should be a officer just like lawyers, doctors and chaplains. The only other CAP officers should be Commanders and former Commanders.

No matter what title you give the rank and file, 1/3rd to 1/2 half or more of the membership will be that "thing".
Pilots are the very definition of specialists (if that is all they do), and therefore would also be the definition of
either WOs or FOs.

A well functioning CAP unit is a team.  The grade worn by the member shouldn't matter, as long as there is a spirit of respect between the membership.  NCO's are leaders without being commanders.  Okay, so there is no exact niche for them yet, even though they have been among us all along.  I served my first year as an NCO, and only gave up the stripes to command a unit.  We have a CAP NCO on the west side of the state, that has been a honored and respected member for as long as I can remember.

I think we get overly distracted by rank and uniforms, and underwhelmed by operations and performance.  Does an NCO Corps help CAP?  Possibly, if you correct some mistakes in creating the officer Corps, and I'm not saying they will, but the opportunity is there with a clean starting slate.

Deleted, original post as a very dark thought as to the pending death of CAP as traditional ties to the USAF are severed and CAP moves further to the corporate model, and too many failed policies and programs.

The org should pay for everything they want the members to have?  Really?

So if they want their legal officers to hold JDs they should pay for those?  If they want their personnel who drive vans to hold driver's licenses they should pay for that?  I've never been in a job where they didn't expect me to come to the table with the skill set they require.  You don't get hired at an architectural firm and then they send you to school for structural engineering.  They expect you to show up on your first day able to design buildings that won't fall down.

CAP can't provide or pay for every skill set they need in their organization, but it doesn't mean that they can't require that if you want to hold a position that you have the training necessary to hold the job.  Certainly, there internal procedures and such that need to be learned that you won't find anywhere else that they need to provide.

Would having our officers hold degrees help?  Maybe, in the sense that if the degree was applicable to the job they were holding they would have more general knowledge of how to do the job effectively than someone walking in off the street without a degree in the field.  I don't necessarily think that those people working at the unit level have a need for holding a degree, but to assume that the folks operating at our strategic levels wouldn't is somewhat absurd. 

So, I assume the solution would be that something like company grade officers would not be required to have a degree, but field grade and above would.  Then cap the promotions of the folks that work at lower levels.  But I digress, my point is that nobody is forcing you to volunteer for CAP, and if you have a burning desire to be the CFO, CAP shouldn't have to pay for your accounting degree.

Apples and hand grenades.  I am talking about leadership development, not specialized skills.

And as we've said before, if you want grade or privilege for those special skills, you have to
demonstrate you're using them for CAP. 

Lawyers, yes if they are appointed as JA.  MOs - no, since they can't so anything in CAP specific to
their skill set.  Pilots, yes if they are flying for CAP, etc., etc.

But in terms of commanders?  No.  Absolutely not.  That should be developed fully in-house.

Having a major in ceramics with a minor in romance languages isn't going to help you be a Wing CC.

Why is there an expectation that we are going to/can develop leadership skills from within?  We always say how 2.5 hours a week is not enough time to do "x" or really change "x" so what makes us think that we can throw a few courses at people and voila, they're leaders?  It's unrealistic, especially in something that is a part-time gig.  Leadership development is going to happen outside of our walls, and our job is to recruit people who have that discipline and ability and teach them how it applies to CAP.

Leadership is a "special skill" that it appears that many/most of our members don't actually have, considering that the exit surveys cite local leadership as one of the major factors of their leaving.  Having a corps of our leadership with specialized skills like "non-profit organizational leadership", "marketing", "journalism", "aviation safety", etc., which are all degrees (besides degrees like liberal arts are going to at least teach someone how to think), at the national, region, and wing levels with a degree which applies to their role is far better than having someone without formal specialized training in that area.  For commanders, at those levels, they need a strategic skill set which doesn't necessarily translate to "Bachelor's in CAP Wing Command", but a directorate level staff officer who has been extremely successful and has leadership abilities (which were probably developed outside of CAP) is going to be a fine candidate for command or our upper levels.

I certainly gave this topic a great deal of thought while we were drafting the minimum requirements for our CEO / National Commander and creating the hiring process.

The BoG was keenly aware that the kinds of things we were looking for as part of the "CEO skillset" were unlikely to be the product of the CAP professional development program.  We even spent some time looking at the NSC & RSC curriculum with an eye towards some suggested improvements.

But ultimately we concluded that without a drastic redesign of the system (to include adding multiple additional tiers requiring months of additional education), our senior leaders would be gaining the majority of the necessary training and experience from outside of CAP.

Just to add some additional data to the converstation, take a look at the  Air Force Demographic Information (http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp) concerning education levels for senior NCOs and officers.

Over 82% of AF senior NCOs have an associate degree or higher.

Half of all AF officers have master's degrees or higher.

Certainly interesting.

I have an Associate in Applied Science degree with Honours (3.735 GPA) and almost enough credits for a Bachelor's in Psychology/Social Work.

I have been on the Dean's List several times.

I do not see how it has helped me in CAP.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 14, 2014, 05:15:29 PM
Leadership is a "special skill" that it appears that many/most of our members don't actually have, considering that the exit surveys cite local leadership as one of the major factors of their leaving.

I don't have it and am not afraid to admit it.

CAP needs an enlisted program open to new members who are not college graduates. An officer's corp. of professionally  educated like RM and a transition program for enlisted to become officers. Years ago we had a membership category as General Membership which is like patron members. We could use that as an enlisted membership with a lower membership dues and different training that current officers. My 2 cents.

Quote from: Ned on October 14, 2014, 05:51:27 PM
I certainly gave this topic a great deal of thought while we were drafting the minimum requirements for our CEO / National Commander and creating the hiring process.

Since any or all of the "minimum qualifications" can be waived by the BOG, they aren't really "requirements", any more then
there have ever been "requirements" for Wing and Region Commanders.  They do make for a convenient disqualification point for
those the BOG may not be interested in entertaining for the job.

Quote from: Ned on October 14, 2014, 05:51:27 PM
Just to add some additional data to the converstation, take a look at the  Air Force Demographic Information (http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp) concerning education levels for senior NCOs and officers.

Over 82% of AF senior NCOs have an associate degree or higher.

Half of all AF officers have master's degrees or higher.

Certainly interesting.

Certainly not relevent, unless CAP is intending to pay for that schooling, which the USAF most certainly does.

Also, I would hazard that a significant number of those with degrees, perhaps even the majority of the NCOs,
are undertaking that education as preparation for post-military employment.

I agree that you can't teach "leadership" in the Teddy Roosevelt sense of the word, but you can teach
"management" fairly easily, not to mention the day-to-day administration of running a squadron, Group, or wing.

The latter should be implemented internally in lieu of the generalized seminars that make up SLS/CLC & UCC.

That training should be required BEFORE you are even considered for a command or staff slot, but again,
CAP is undermanned by 30-50% to even consider that idea.

Someone with a relevent degree should be able to move into that space easily (in the same way we expect
an Army Ranger to still demonstrate the GTM tasks), but someone without a degree, but good general aptitude
can also achieve a high level of competence (we know that because of the anecdotal successes we see in pockets today).

^^I went through both SLS and CLC back in 1994, within just a few months of joining.

I do not remember anything but very general concepts about them.

I would guess that the curricula have changed since then.

Quote from: abdsp51 on October 13, 2014, 06:51:26 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 13, 2014, 06:46:23 PM
Why doesn't CAP ever reach for the affectation of the parts of the military that would actually benefit it
or the membership?

Raise the bar on who can serve as staff and commanders?  I'm there with you, let's do it today, by
holding people to expectations of performance and training them INTERNALLY >BEFORE< they
get the prime job.

Anything CAP expects of the membership in terms of training or education, it should be providing to
its members, otherwise you break the entirety of the ROI, not to mention shrink your membership
pool  even further.

Bingo.  If my employer requires me to have something to do my job they provide it no ifs, ands, or butts.

While I don't necessarily agree with this "requirement" for CAP, your statement makes no sense. My job required me to have a degree. Without the degree, I wouldn't have been hired. The same is true for certain promotions. Companies can and do require certain employees to hold degrees or other special qualifications.

Now, getting back to CAP. I doubt a degree will ever be required. That said, it wouldn't be unprecedented. CAP requires the National Commander, also a volunteer, to hold a bachelor's degree. CAP also requires legal officers to hold a law degree, etc. They could do the same for region and wing commanders or certain staff officers.

While I'm not advocating that CAP add education requirements for the general membership, they could very well do so for certain command or staff positions. In fact, they already do. The reason the military requires officers to hold a degree is because they want officers to have a minimum level of education, just like the private sector do with certain employees. The degree doesn't make the officers better, but ensures there's a baseline in which to further that education.

That said, CAP is different and should not be held to the same standard as the military. Should we require CAP officers to hold degrees? Probably not. Do we need all members to be officers? Definitely not. In fact, I don't know of any other organization in which 90% of members are officers.

Quote from: Ned on October 14, 2014, 05:51:27 PM

Just to add some additional data to the converstation, take a look at the  Air Force Demographic Information (http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp) concerning education levels for senior NCOs and officers.

Over 82% of AF senior NCOs have an associate degree or higher.

Half of all AF officers have master's degrees or higher.

Certainly interesting.

Having your CCAF Associate degree is pretty much required if you want to make MSgt in the Air Force.
In some career fields where the compretition is especially tight you might even need it to make TSgt.
A BS/BA is pretty much a prerequesite for SMSgt and CMSgt.

On the officer side a Master's is needed to make Major these days.

Quote from: PHall on October 15, 2014, 01:12:59 AM
Having your CCAF Associate degree is pretty much required if you want to make MSgt in the Air Force.
In some career fields where the compretition is especially tight you might even need it to make TSgt.
A BS/BA is pretty much a prerequesite for SMSgt and CMSgt.

On the officer side a Master's is needed to make Major these days.

Looks like that is the case now since they have instituted boards for MSgt.  However in the 15 years I have been in it was never a requirement for TSgt even in tightly competitive AFSCs.  It has been a requirement for senior rated endorsement and to promote to SMSgt.  If you have info on the board process for Msgt please share.

Quote from: abdsp51 on October 15, 2014, 01:49:34 AM

Quote from: PHall on October 15, 2014, 01:12:59 AM
Having your CCAF Associate degree is pretty much required if you want to make MSgt in the Air Force.
In some career fields where the compretition is especially tight you might even need it to make TSgt.
A BS/BA is pretty much a prerequesite for SMSgt and CMSgt.

On the officer side a Master's is needed to make Major these days.

Looks like that is the case now since they have instituted boards for MSgt.  However in the 15 years I have been in it was never a requirement for TSgt even in tightly competitive AFSCs.  It has been a requirement for senior rated endorsement and to promote to SMSgt.  If you have info on the board process for Msgt please share.

Can't help you for Active Duty.  But in the Reserve, especially if you're going for a PEP (Promotions for Exceptional Performers) promotion to MSgt, that CCAF degree is mandatory if you want any chance at all.  A PEP promotion allows you to be promoted one grade over what your manpower authorization slot is.
So if you're an E6 in an E6 slot you can be promoted to E7 and still be in that E6 slot. Pretty bloody important in Reserve units where there isn't that much turnover.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 14, 2014, 03:25:20 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on October 13, 2014, 10:31:06 PM... I would like warrant officer grades to be reinstated (the Air Force does not have them, so there would be no confusion) for those (like me) who are job-specific and have no desire/ability to run the show.  However, that will not happen.

What is wrong with NCOs. The downside to WO is a third to half the SQ will be WOs.

Not sure how I see that as a bad thing.

Quote from: PHall on October 15, 2014, 02:19:19 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on October 15, 2014, 01:49:34 AM

Quote from: PHall on October 15, 2014, 01:12:59 AM
Having your CCAF Associate degree is pretty much required if you want to make MSgt in the Air Force.
In some career fields where the compretition is especially tight you might even need it to make TSgt.
A BS/BA is pretty much a prerequesite for SMSgt and CMSgt.

On the officer side a Master's is needed to make Major these days.

Looks like that is the case now since they have instituted boards for MSgt.  However in the 15 years I have been in it was never a requirement for TSgt even in tightly competitive AFSCs.  It has been a requirement for senior rated endorsement and to promote to SMSgt.  If you have info on the board process for Msgt please share.

Can't help you for Active Duty.  But in the Reserve, especially if you're going for a PEP (Promotions for Exceptional Performers) promotion to MSgt, that CCAF degree is mandatory if you want any chance at all.  A PEP promotion allows you to be promoted one grade over what your manpower authorization slot is.
So if you're an E6 in an E6 slot you can be promoted to E7 and still be in that E6 slot. Pretty bloody important in Reserve units where there isn't that much turnover.

Concur. Advanced education has always been a factor either in my performance reports or promotions. My bachelors degree was a factor back in 1979 when I was promoted to senior airman below the zone (only had 23 months in service when I put the stripes on) It happened again when I was promoted to master sergeant in 1989 as a Reservist on a Title 10 active duty tour. At that point I had finished a masters degree.

WIWAC back in the 70s, officer grade (2 Lt and up) was much harder for senior members to earn...most started as SMWOG, became Warrant Officers then Chief Warrant Officers. I'm not certain, but I believe they were required to take certain correspondence courses (possibly the old ECI 13??) before even being considered for 2 Lt.

The result was that most squadrons had a bunch of WOs and CWOs, a handful of lieutenants and very few captains or above. The captains and majors were almost all prior active duty, or long service CAP members, or special appointments (chaplains, doctors, teachers)...all of whom generally knew what they were doing and had the experience to back it up.

Lt Colonels were sometimes found commanding squadrons, but that was rare...mostly they were serving at group or wing.

It wasn't a perfect system, but there was clarity in it, because it was immediately obvious, both to members and outsiders, who the folks in charge were!

^ That was likely in the era of manning tables where grade was tied to staff levels and appointments.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 15, 2014, 02:43:49 PM
WIWAC back in the 70s, officer grade (2 Lt and up) was much harder for senior members to earn...most started as SMWOG, became Warrant Officers then Chief Warrant Officers. I'm not certain, but I believe they were required to take certain correspondence courses (possibly the old ECI 13??) before even being considered for 2 Lt.

The result was that most squadrons had a bunch of WOs and CWOs, a handful of lieutenants and very few captains or above. The captains and majors were almost all prior active duty, or long service CAP members, or special appointments (chaplains, doctors, teachers)...all of whom generally knew what they were doing and had the experience to back it up.

Lt Colonels were sometimes found commanding squadrons, but that was rare...mostly they were serving at group or wing.

It wasn't a perfect system, but there was clarity in it, because it was immediately obvious, both to members and outsiders, who the folks in charge were!

The Navy Sea Cadets still hold their officers to a similar standard.

You have to serve one year as an "Instructor" (INST) and learn their rules and regulations thoroughly, then take a test (I think closed-book).  If you make that, you are considered for Ensign.

They have no officers at the local level higher than Lieutenant Commander.

A prior-service E-5 can come in as a Warrant Officer.

Quote from: CyBorg on October 15, 2014, 03:22:30 PM

The Navy Sea Cadets still hold their officers to a similar standard.

You have to serve one year as an "Instructor" (INST) and learn their rules and regulations thoroughly, then take a test (I think closed-book).  If you make that, you are considered for Ensign.

They have no officers at the local level higher than Lieutenant Commander.

A prior-service E-5 can come in as a Warrant Officer.

As I understand it, they have no officers at all higher than lieutenant commander.  (Anyone involved wearing higher rank is regular Navy.)

I looked into it a couple of years back ... realized that a 50-something-year-old ensign was kind of silly, and decided not to pursue it.

Jack

Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 15, 2014, 02:43:49 PM
WIWAC back in the 70s, officer grade (2 Lt and up) was much harder for senior members to earn...most started as SMWOG, became Warrant Officers then Chief Warrant Officers. I'm not certain, but I believe they were required to take certain correspondence courses (possibly the old ECI 13??) before even being considered for 2 Lt.

The result was that most squadrons had a bunch of WOs and CWOs, a handful of lieutenants and very few captains or above. The captains and majors were almost all prior active duty, or long service CAP members, or special appointments (chaplains, doctors, teachers)...all of whom generally knew what they were doing and had the experience to back it up.

Lt Colonels were sometimes found commanding squadrons, but that was rare...mostly they were serving at group or wing.

It wasn't a perfect system, but there was clarity in it, because it was immediately obvious, both to members and outsiders, who the folks in charge were!

It was tough enough that I was a CAP NCO at that time who got promoted to WO-1. My appointment as an officer was strictly a professional appointment because I held a communications specialty and obtained a Third Class Radio Telephone License. I made first lieutenant only because I had technician rating and then I stayed a lieutenant much of the next 10 years.

I remember that you never saw anything higher than first lieutenant at squadron level and a lot of majors at group level. The only lieutenant colonels were at wing.

I'm not opposed to that same system now.

How about this one.

For the general guy off the street, no special qualifications, no prior military, no nothing....just a 18 year old wishing to serve.

Joins up as an Airman Basic, six moths gets Amn, 10 months later A1C, after three years he gets SrA.

At that point he can (if he qualifies) go to a CAP OTS (sort of like RCS but different) and at the four year mark puts on 2d Lt.

If he can't go officer, he gos to a CAP NCO School and at the four year mark puts on SSgt.

For those non-prior military types with special qualifications CAP is looking for (Pilots, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc)....they join at the six month mark they put on FO, at the sixteen month mark they put on TFO, and at three years they put on SFO....they then go to the OTS and put on 2d Lt.

Prior military personnel can AFTER SIX MONTHS apply for and be appointed to appropriate CAP grade.

Just to point out.....this is my own little ideal, I have no idea if the NCO corps team is working on something like this.

You have my attention, but you need to remove the prior military exception for the TIG - that's an interesting
twist on the FO grades.  I'd go further and have everyone, regardless of age, do a full year enlisted
before they can apply for anything - that clears the decks of the guys just joining for grade.

I could see waiving OTS, but no reason the should be "special" as they have no relevent CAP experience.

4 Years in before anyone is an officer at least makes some sense.

4 years for existing officers to complete OTS to retain their grade?

Further on this, Biennial EPRs and OPRs to see if a member should even be retained in their current grade.
Criteria would be heavily weighted on attendance, participation and professional development. This way,
authority aside, at least people would know that if you're a 10-year 1-stripe, you probably rarely show up.

Then again, at then end of the conversation, without tying authority to grade, what's the point?
And without "up or out" you're still in the same position inside of ten years.

I've come to the conclusion that the whole issue of "fixing" CAP grade structure is nothing but a cart-before-the-horse situation. 

We've come a decent ways in terms of CAP-specific PD training in the last 10 years.  It is better than it was when I started at all levels. 

But, no one has convinced me that CAP has developed the training needed to make CAP run as best it can given our basic organizational structure. 

Without having rock solid training that ensures that people at specific levels of the organization have the tools they need to do the job they have, it really doesn't matter what grade structure we have. 

Fine -- make EVERYone start at Airman Basic, but if all we do then is re-order our existing training programs to kick in at lower rank levels, then we have accomplished nothing but a cosmetic change in how the organization looks. 

I think that the whole idea is really just all about the appearances.  Some people just think that CAP will have increased credibility within the AF and with other professional agencies if our grade structure looks different.  So, they're looking at making a few minor tweaks in training requirements to provide cover for the bigger purpose of reducing the number of officers because once some AF Major said, "Is everyone in CAP a Lt. Col.?" to them. 

So, before we make any major changes to the grade structure, come up with a 16-level training program (or however many steps it takes to go from Airman to Lt. Col.).  As those training programs are developed, fold them into our existing grade structure and once that is complete, then look at changing the grade structure based on then proven training requirements. 

Do, I think something like that will happen?  Absolutely not.  Its obvious that we're going to stick with the current 5 levels with some sort of mirror image for NCOs.  Absolutely nothing of importance will change in CAP.  We'll be left with basically the same level of capabilities in our members and a more complicated set of training requirements that then, as now, will be ignored by a significant percentage of our membership.  Instead of having a lot of lower-rank officers that don't do anything beyond Level 1, we'll have a lot of lower ranked enlisted. 

We will have gained nothing. 

Like Eclipse, I am very open to a major change, but nothing indicates that a major change for the better is in the offing.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 03:10:22 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the whole issue of "fixing" CAP grade structure is nothing but a cart-before-the-horse situation. 

We've come a decent ways in terms of CAP-specific PD training in the last 10 years.  It is better than it was when I started at all levels. 

But, no one has convinced me that CAP has developed the training needed to make CAP run as best it can given our basic organizational structure. 

Without having rock solid training that ensures that people at specific levels of the organization have the tools they need to do the job they have, it really doesn't matter what grade structure we have. 

Fine -- make EVERYone start at Airman Basic, but if all we do then is re-order our existing training programs to kick in at lower rank levels, then we have accomplished nothing but a cosmetic change in how the organization looks. 

I think that the whole idea is really just all about the appearances.  Some people just think that CAP will have increased credibility within the AF and with other professional agencies if our grade structure looks different.  So, they're looking at making a few minor tweaks in training requirements to provide cover for the bigger purpose of reducing the number of officers because once some AF Major said, "Is everyone in CAP a Lt. Col.?" to them. 

So, before we make any major changes to the grade structure, come up with a 16-level training program (or however many steps it takes to go from Airman to Lt. Col.).  As those training programs are developed, fold them into our existing grade structure and once that is complete, then look at changing the grade structure based on then proven training requirements. 

Do, I think something like that will happen?  Absolutely not.  Its obvious that we're going to stick with the current 5 levels with some sort of mirror image for NCOs.  Absolutely nothing of importance will change in CAP.  We'll be left with basically the same level of capabilities in our members and a more complicated set of training requirements that then, as now, will be ignored by a significant percentage of our membership.  Instead of having a lot of lower-rank officers that don't do anything beyond Level 1, we'll have a lot of lower ranked enlisted. 

We will have gained nothing. 

Like Eclipse, I am very open to a major change, but nothing indicates that a major change for the better is in the offing.

Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 16, 2014, 02:08:13 AM
How about this one.

For the general guy off the street, no special qualifications, no prior military, no nothing....just a 18 year old wishing to serve.

Joins up as an Airman Basic, six moths gets Amn, 10 months later A1C, after three years he gets SrA.

At that point he can (if he qualifies) go to a CAP OTS (sort of like RCS but different) and at the four year mark puts on 2d Lt.

If he can't go officer, he gos to a CAP NCO School and at the four year mark puts on SSgt.

For those non-prior military types with special qualifications CAP is looking for (Pilots, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc)....they join at the six month mark they put on FO, at the sixteen month mark they put on TFO, and at three years they put on SFO....they then go to the OTS and put on 2d Lt.

Prior military personnel can AFTER SIX MONTHS apply for and be appointed to appropriate CAP grade.

Just to point out.....this is my own little ideal, I have no idea if the NCO corps team is working on something like this.

I like your ideal.   :clap:

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 16, 2014, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 16, 2014, 02:08:13 AM
How about this one.

For the general guy off the street, no special qualifications, no prior military, no nothing....just a 18 year old wishing to serve.

Joins up as an Airman Basic, six moths gets Amn, 10 months later A1C, after three years he gets SrA.

At that point he can (if he qualifies) go to a CAP OTS (sort of like RCS but different) and at the four year mark puts on 2d Lt.

If he can't go officer, he gos to a CAP NCO School and at the four year mark puts on SSgt.

For those non-prior military types with special qualifications CAP is looking for (Pilots, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc)....they join at the six month mark they put on FO, at the sixteen month mark they put on TFO, and at three years they put on SFO....they then go to the OTS and put on 2d Lt.

Prior military personnel can AFTER SIX MONTHS apply for and be appointed to appropriate CAP grade.

Just to point out.....this is my own little ideal, I have no idea if the NCO corps team is working on something like this.

I like your ideal.   :clap:

Very similar to my idea!

Lordmonar for Nat.CC!

(Less the advanced military promotions).

I don't actually think anyone CARES if we're top heavy. At least with a structured progression, that top should imply success at internal experience.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 16, 2014, 02:41:17 PMthat top should imply success at internal experience.

Unfortunately, it doesn't, or at least hasn't.

Since we don't have "up or out", we wind up with a LOT of "seasoned" members in the higher grades who
are out of touch with CAP reality, either because they stagnate in a given role and just coast, wander into and
out of CAP on a whim and don't stay current, or rose via "alternate" means and never had a clue to start (skills promotion, etc.)

The first one is probably the most troublesome as these "seasoned" members should be the Yodas, but tend to be lost.
Perhaps that will change as generations used to technology and constant change replace those who are lost via attrition,
but until there is an "up or out" to CAP grade, it's never going to get fixed, no matter what you do.

The military doesn't have 65 year old Captains, or for that matter 75 year old SrAs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man's_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man's_War)

Quote from: abdsp51 on October 13, 2014, 06:01:28 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on October 13, 2014, 05:59:12 PM
No, they may just want officers with degrees.  If you want to be an officer.... if you don't....

If they want officers to hold degrees the org can pay for it.  Having a degree does not make someone a better leader or officer.

If I own a Trucking company, and I needed to hire drivers, do I:

a.) Hire untrained people off the street and pay for them to receive CDL Training?

or

b.) Hire CDL trained drivers?

If CAP wants to require a degree for promotion to an Officer's rank, they can. If you wish to promote to those ranks, it would be up to you to complete the required education.

CAP currently requires most officers to complete a certain level of training to be eligible for promotion (i.e. Level IV to LTC), how is this any different?

Quote from: CyBorg on October 13, 2014, 08:29:33 PM
This is a really bad, Godwin's-Law evoking comparison, but I think it shows the two-tiered disconnect between CAP rank and serving military rank.

An AF SSgt accepts the grade of CAP SSgt.  However, SSgt Stripes is promoted to TSgt, and subsequently MSgt, in the Air Force (or ANG, or AFRES).  However,  SSgt Stripes may still be an SSgt in CAP, because s/he may not have met CAP requirements for promotion.  MSgt Stripes, USAF/AFRES/ANG, scratches his/her head over "what's wrong with this picture?"

Those of you who are history buffs know that in WWII, Hitler's personal band of merry thugs, the SS, had several different divisions, though nearly identical uniforms and ranks.

There was such a disconnect between the Allgemeine-SS ("general" SS, who mostly manned the death/concentration camps) and Waffen-SS ("armed" SS, the "battlefield" SS) that it was possible to hold wildly disparate ranks between the two.

If you were a member of both the Wf-SS and Alg-SS, you could hold such differing ranks as SS-Hauptsturmführer (captain) in the Wf-SS and Scharführer (approximately Sergeant) in the Alg-SS...thereby outranking yourself!

Then, of course, if you were also in the Gestapo or Ordnungspolizei, also controlled by the SS, you could have so many different ranks you wouldn't know which on-base club you could go in to trink ein Bier.

Of course, CAP is by no means the SS and I don't intend to infer that at all...my point is the confusion between what rank who holds where.

And then if you are also in the CGAUX (which has "offices," but with quasi-rank insignia), your SDF, etc., the confusion can be even worse.

Actually the SS-Totenkopfverbände ran the camps, the Allgemeine-SS, was, at least from 1933 onward, more a part time political organization/social club in which honorary rank was given to party big-wigs to ensure "favors" for/from Himmler.

Waffen-SS rank was the real rank so you have your example reversed, so if you were a Waffen-SS Captain, they would honorarily promote you to Captain in the Allgemeine-SS.

Also the Order Police, Ordnungspolizei , the national police force was controled by the SS so almost ever Police Officer held concurrent rank in the SS.

But your point is taken.

Quote from: Al Sayre on October 13, 2014, 09:26:02 PM
You may be surprised by the number of real military NCO's who also hold reserve commissions.  For example, when I went to MEPS, I was processed by an Army E-6 who administered my enlistment oath as an Reserve Army O-3.

I understand that this is because  when officers in the lower grades are R.I.F.'d they are (sometimes) given the opportunity to enlist at an advanced pay-grade, but simultaneously hold a reserve commission and will receive their retirement at the highest pay-grade attained.   

If the "real military" doesn't have a problem with simultaneously holding both officer and enlisted grade, why should we?

Not really "simultaneously". You will always retire at your highest rank, but with your highest pay.

IN your example a Captain was RIF-ed and allowed to enlist to complete his twenty years of service at E-5. He continues in Service and promotes all the way up to Sergeant Major.

When he retires he will be discharged as a Captain (highest rank) but receive the Sergeant Major's retirement benefit (highest pay).

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 02:45:53 PM
The military doesn't have 65 year old Captains, or for that matter 75 year old SrAs.

I know of one instance during the callups after 9/11 of a retired Army Chief Warrant Officer (4 or 5, not sure which).

He was rather aged and had put in a LOT of time in the Army.

However, the Army decided he needed to complete Basic Training again, or at least parts of it!

One of the Drill Sergeants who was supposed to train him was interviewed and said "I really don't know what to do with this.  He is too old for this kind of physical stress, and I cannot really treat him as a recruit because he is an officer and I have to salute him."

I don't know how it eventually played out...but the Army had to be pretty short of people in this CWO's MOS to have called him up.

QuoteThat said, CAP is different and should not be held to the same standard as the military. Should we require CAP officers to hold degrees? Probably not. Do we need all members to be officers? Definitely not. In fact, I don't know of any other organization in which 90% of members are officers.

Which is why I'm starting to agree with some on this board that Warrant Officer rank is the way to go.

Five levels of CAP education = five Warrant Officer grades. (Yes you'd have to "create" an USAF CW-5 grade insignia)

Flight Officer for 18-21 year olds stays the same but the 21 promotion would be WO-1, CW-2, and CW-3 respectively.

Officer rank would be temporary for those that hold "command" positions and once you are out of command you revert back to your Warrant rank.

If you want to be an NCO, because you were/are one in the Military, then continue the current policy of awarding NCO rank, but there is no need for a promotion system.

The only "butt-hurt" people would be prior Service Officers (like myself) who would no longer be able to receive direct appointments to our Military rank in CAP.

That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 16, 2014, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 16, 2014, 02:08:13 AM
How about this one.

For the general guy off the street, no special qualifications, no prior military, no nothing....just a 18 year old wishing to serve.

Joins up as an Airman Basic, six moths gets Amn, 10 months later A1C, after three years he gets SrA.

At that point he can (if he qualifies) go to a CAP OTS (sort of like RCS but different) and at the four year mark puts on 2d Lt.

If he can't go officer, he gos to a CAP NCO School and at the four year mark puts on SSgt.

For those non-prior military types with special qualifications CAP is looking for (Pilots, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc)....they join at the six month mark they put on FO, at the sixteen month mark they put on TFO, and at three years they put on SFO....they then go to the OTS and put on 2d Lt.

Prior military personnel can AFTER SIX MONTHS apply for and be appointed to appropriate CAP grade.

Just to point out.....this is my own little ideal, I have no idea if the NCO corps team is working on something like this.

I like your ideal.   :clap:

Not bad, I like it too.  :clap:

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

QuoteThat said, CAP is different and should not be held to the same standard as the military. Should we require CAP officers to hold degrees? Probably not. Do we need all members to be officers? Definitely not. In fact, I don't know of any other organization in which 90% of members are officers.

Which is why I'm starting to agree with some on this board that Warrant Officer rank is the way to go.

Five levels of CAP education = five Warrant Officer grades. (Yes you'd have to "create" an USAF CW-5 grade insignia)

Flight Officer for 18-21 year olds stays the same but the 21 promotion would be WO-1, CW-2, and CW-3 respectively.

Officer rank would be temporary for those that hold "command" positions and once you are out of command you revert back to your Warrant rank.

If you want to be an NCO, because you were/are one in the Military, then continue the current policy of awarding NCO rank, but there is no need for a promotion system.

The only "butt-hurt" people would be prior Service Officers (like myself) who would no longer be able to receive direct appointments to our Military rank in CAP.

That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

I could live with that.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

So, there should be some hierarchy of service?  So, when the Air Force is supporting the Army by flying some troops around, the AF pilots should revert to a lower rank than the highest ranking Army officer? 

Thats just as ludicrous as the idea that there should be some relationship between CAP rank and AF rank.  After all, if you want to use that sort of logic we might as well get rid of all the ranks since even an Airman would outrank a CAP Major General. 

CAP rank is CAP rank.  Stop trying to relate it to other services. 

Fire Department Captains are different from Police Captains that are different from Air Force Captains that are different from Navy Captains (who could actually be an Ensign) that are different from Captain Kangaroo.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 16, 2014, 06:33:56 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

QuoteThat said, CAP is different and should not be held to the same standard as the military. Should we require CAP officers to hold degrees? Probably not. Do we need all members to be officers? Definitely not. In fact, I don't know of any other organization in which 90% of members are officers.

Which is why I'm starting to agree with some on this board that Warrant Officer rank is the way to go.

Five levels of CAP education = five Warrant Officer grades. (Yes you'd have to "create" an USAF CW-5 grade insignia)

Flight Officer for 18-21 year olds stays the same but the 21 promotion would be WO-1, CW-2, and CW-3 respectively.

Officer rank would be temporary for those that hold "command" positions and once you are out of command you revert back to your Warrant rank.

If you want to be an NCO, because you were/are one in the Military, then continue the current policy of awarding NCO rank, but there is no need for a promotion system.

The only "butt-hurt" people would be prior Service Officers (like myself) who would no longer be able to receive direct appointments to our Military rank in CAP.

That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

I could live with that.

Did we just agree on something? Cold day in Hades indeed!  ;D

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Were you not just complaining that with this new NCO system we would have CAP Captains ordering CAP SSGTs to take out the garbage!!?!!  ::)

Talk about eating and having your cake too!

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:32:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Were you not just complaining that with this new NCO system we would have CAP Captains ordering CAP SSGTs to take out the garbage!!?!!  ::)

Talk about eating and having your cake too!

How is this related to that?

Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 08:13:26 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

So, there should be some hierarchy of service?  So, when the Air Force is supporting the Army by flying some troops around, the AF pilots should revert to a lower rank than the highest ranking Army officer? 

Thats just as ludicrous as the idea that there should be some relationship between CAP rank and AF rank.  After all, if you want to use that sort of logic we might as well get rid of all the ranks since even an Airman would outrank a CAP Major General. 

CAP rank is CAP rank.  Stop trying to relate it to other services. 

Fire Department Captains are different from Police Captains that are different from Air Force Captains that are different from Navy Captains (who could actually be an Ensign) that are different from Captain Kangaroo.

As one who was (is?) a member of the USCGAux you should understand the model of no rank/office when supporting the real military.

Warrant Officer rank would be a great compromise for CAP where "rank" seems to matter, but doesn't really.

There would still be a hierarchy in place, Flight Officers are subordinate to Warrant Officers, Warrant Officers have rank over each other and commanders at all levels have temporary command/authority rank over the Warrants and each other by chain of command.

You still show progression but would no longer have six out of work LTCs making coffee for a meeting run by a CPT, you'd have a room full of Warrant Officers that currently work for that CPT.

And yes, an Air Force Airman should out rank a CAP General, much the same as a Seaman recruit in the USCG out ranks a USCGAux Commodore.   ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:43:38 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:32:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Were you not just complaining that with this new NCO system we would have CAP Captains ordering CAP SSGTs to take out the garbage!!?!!  ::)

Talk about eating and having your cake too!

How is this related to that?

Are you being obtuse Sir, or is that a serious question?

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
There would still be a hierarchy in place, Flight Officers are subordinate to Warrant Officers, Warrant Officers have rank over each other and commanders at all levels have temporary command/authority rank over the Warrants and each other by chain of command.

Statements like this are where your lack of participation shows.

There is no hierarchy of grade in CAP, period.  Until that changes, any restructure is just moving the furniture.

You're commenting, again, on things you have no clue about, nor relevent experience to bring to the conversation.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:45:19 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:43:38 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:32:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Were you not just complaining that with this new NCO system we would have CAP Captains ordering CAP SSGTs to take out the garbage!!?!!  ::)

Talk about eating and having your cake too!

How is this related to that?

Are you being obtuse Sir, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question - CAP is not a "subordinate service" to the USAF or anyone else, therefore, whether CAP grades
are, on the mean, lower higher, or equal to the USAF is irrelevant, see River's point above.

Your best best is to join a unit, serve quietly for 3-5 years, then come back to this conversation.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
And yes, an Air Force Airman should out rank a CAP General, much the same as a Seaman recruit in the USCG out ranks a USCGAux Commodore.   ;)

And thats where you show that you don't understand how CAP works.  No one outranks a CAP General.  He/She is a CAP General.  HeShe is not subordinate to any Air Force officer or airman.  He reports to the CAP BoG. 

Unless a CAP person happens to be on an Air Force Base, that CAP person can ignore an order given by an AF General. 

And that is why it doesn't matter how CAP ranks look to other services. 

QuoteAs one who was (is?) a member of the USCGAux you should understand the model of no rank/office when supporting the real military.

I do, but CAP has shown that it is certainly possible to do it an entirely different way as we have done since 1941. 

Theres a lot of things CAP could learn from CG Aux, but few of them relate directly to CAP rank.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:47:40 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:45:19 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 08:43:38 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:32:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
That way almost all of CAP would be "equal" to each outher, but outranked by almost all of the USAF we are supposed to be supporting.

And why is this important?

Were you not just complaining that with this new NCO system we would have CAP Captains ordering CAP SSGTs to take out the garbage!!?!!  ::)

Talk about eating and having your cake too!

How is this related to that?

Are you being obtuse Sir, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question - CAP is not a "subordinate service" to the USAF or anyone else, therefore, whether CAP grades
are, on the mean, lower higher, or equal to the USAF is irrelevant, see River's point above.

Your best best is to join a unit, serve quietly for 3-5 years, then come back to this conversation.

"Serve quietly", yah that's never going to happen.

But thanks for the advise Sir, BTW based on your predictions of doom and gloom for CAP, will it still be around for me to serve in 5 years from now?  ::)

Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 09:08:11 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
And yes, an Air Force Airman should out rank a CAP General, much the same as a Seaman recruit in the USCG out ranks a USCGAux Commodore.   ;)

And thats where you show that you don't understand how CAP works.  No one outranks a CAP General.  He/She is a CAP General.  HeShe is not subordinate to any Air Force officer or airman.  He reports to the CAP BoG. 

Unless a CAP person happens to be on an Air Force Base, that CAP person can ignore an order given by an AF General. 

And that is why it doesn't matter how CAP ranks look to other services. 

QuoteAs one who was (is?) a member of the USCGAux you should understand the model of no rank/office when supporting the real military.

I do, but CAP has shown that it is certainly possible to do it an entirely different way as we have done since 1941. 

Theres a lot of things CAP could learn from CG Aux, but few of them relate directly to CAP rank.

So which do you think is the better approach?

I strongly believe CAP would get less blow back and more USAF Auxiliary missions if rank wasn't envolved and there was just service to the mission.

The primary reason that CG Aux has such a close relationship with the USCG is that the CG is a tiny service that has a bajillion missions that have to be performed right here in the United States and they need the help to get the job done (at least certain jobs). 

I've been a big proponent of trying to develop a program where CAP members could augment the AF and that certainly could be done the same way that the CG Aux does it -- take off the rank while serving with the CG.  CAP could institute such a rule today and it would resolve any issues arising from that. 

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 09:36:00 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on October 16, 2014, 09:08:11 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
And yes, an Air Force Airman should out rank a CAP General, much the same as a Seaman recruit in the USCG out ranks a USCGAux Commodore.   ;)

And thats where you show that you don't understand how CAP works.  No one outranks a CAP General.  He/She is a CAP General.  HeShe is not subordinate to any Air Force officer or airman.  He reports to the CAP BoG. 

Unless a CAP person happens to be on an Air Force Base, that CAP person can ignore an order given by an AF General. 

And that is why it doesn't matter how CAP ranks look to other services. 

QuoteAs one who was (is?) a member of the USCGAux you should understand the model of no rank/office when supporting the real military.

I do, but CAP has shown that it is certainly possible to do it an entirely different way as we have done since 1941. 

Theres a lot of things CAP could learn from CG Aux, but few of them relate directly to CAP rank.

So which do you think is the better approach?

I strongly believe CAP would get less blow back and more USAF Auxiliary missions if rank wasn't envolved and there was just service to the mission.

You're showing your ignorance of CAP operations again, how about becoming an active member and actually learning this stuff?


Rank/grade is not involved in the issuance of missions by the AF or federal agencies (the types that trigger our Aux status).  Our SOW and MOUs have more of a factor than anything.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 09:32:54 PM
"Serve quietly", yah that's never going to happen.

I don't recall "serving CAP" as something you've done at all.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:12:39 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 09:32:54 PM
"Serve quietly", yah that's never going to happen.

I don't recall "serving CAP" as something you've done at all.

You cash my check every year, that's as quiet as you're gonna get.

BTW, why do you reject fresh ideas out of turn?

To think outside the box, you kinda have to be out of the box.

You seem intent on putting me in a box... why is that?

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:12:39 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 09:32:54 PM
"Serve quietly", yah that's never going to happen.

I don't recall "serving CAP" as something you've done at all.

But hey, if he does, he can instantly "outrank" most CAP members with 5+ years in!

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:12:39 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 09:32:54 PM
"Serve quietly", yah that's never going to happen.

I don't recall "serving CAP" as something you've done at all.

You cash my check every year, that's as quiet as you're gonna get.

BTW, why do you reject fresh ideas out of turn?

To think outside the box, you kinda have to be out of the box.

You seem intent on putting me in a box... why is that?

As has been said many times, thanks for the donation. But the most you'd get from me at a first meeting is a polite "that's nice".

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
You seem intent on putting me in a box... why is that?

For pretty much the same reason you'd give me if I started offering "advice" and "comment"
about the Army's uniforms and professional development.

Ned, Lordmonor, NIN, and any number of others can go 10 rounds because we, have relevent experience
dealing with the situation. You don't, and your experience doesn't apply.

That's the risk in bringing in people at too high a level day one - those people think CAP is "just like
those other things I did...". It's not for 10 reasons CAP is unique from any other organization in
the know multiverse which is why people who think they understand it, without being >in< it,
generally have no idea what they are talking about.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 15, 2014, 02:58:02 PM
^ That was likely in the era of manning tables where grade was tied to staff levels and appointments.

True, and while I'm not advocating a return to that model, which does not work well for CAP, I still feel a longer period of training/experience between joining and becoming a CAP officer is worth considering.

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 16, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

I made a similar proposal, and, like you, was shot down as something "that wasn't needed."

Quote from: Panache on October 17, 2014, 09:42:05 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 16, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

I made a similar proposal, and, like you, was shot down as something "that wasn't needed."

Seems to me that none of this is really "needed". If you need something to show who is in charge, give that guy a special pin or a silly hat or a wand. No need for the rest of the membership to be wearing bars and leaves and such. The problem with it is that by wearing it, to the rest of the uniformed world, it implies competence and/or authority, which is lacking in many cases. I've said it before, and I'll advocate for it as much as I can: drop the rank system as it is now. Adopt a system similar to the Coastie Aux. Focus on real issues.

The problem is that we are a volunteer organization and promotions/awards and decorations are the only tangible means of recognizing the membership.

I do believe, however, that the promotion system needs to be really tightened up and I do believe in manning tables where if you want advanced rank, you really need to be prepared for more responsibility at higher levels of command (which also means more experience). It doesn't really hurt our organization if a standard closer to the Air Force were put in place because then that rank would actually mean something to the individual -- and then that rank would reflect the individual's experience level.

The people that really drive me nuts in CAP are ones who have so much time on their hands that they take all of the on-line courses, somehow amass multiple specialties and yet they are useless in the field. A little slowing of the rank progression and stiffer requirements in specialties and promotions would make those people more useful.

Quote from: Panache on October 17, 2014, 09:42:05 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 16, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

I made a similar proposal, and, like you, was shot down as something "that wasn't needed."

True enough.  Another solution in search of a problem.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
To think outside the box, you kinda have to be out of the box.

Actually, no. You need to have pertinent experience and an in-depth knowledge of the parts in the box in the first place to change the status quo in a positive manner.

Imagine briefly what your thoughts would be if you were to describe on an internet forum the issues going on around your security post and someone with no true understanding of those issues beyond what (s)he read were to tell you how to fix all of your problems. Would you accept the proposed solution or would you attempt to politely explain to that person the (s)he has no idea what (s)he is talking about?

Based on my understanding that you are patron member with perhaps one renewal and have never attended a CAP meeting or function, I would think you should be able to understand why you get push-back on ideas where you are not well-versed in the issues you are trying to solve.

Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2014, 12:10:01 PM

Quote from: Panache on October 17, 2014, 09:42:05 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 16, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

I made a similar proposal, and, like you, was shot down as something "that wasn't needed."

True enough.  Another solution in search of a problem.

Considering the number of pages of text written on CAPTalk on this very topic, apparently it is a problem.

Quote from: Panache on October 18, 2014, 05:07:39 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2014, 12:10:01 PM

Quote from: Panache on October 17, 2014, 09:42:05 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 16, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
Oddly enough, I put forth a 4 tier system that incorporated Airmen into the program, and a progression structure here a few months back. Shot down. But I still say it's valid. I spent hours on it during downtime at work. I think it would work.

I made a similar proposal, and, like you, was shot down as something "that wasn't needed."

True enough.  Another solution in search of a problem.

Considering the number of pages of text written on CAPTalk on this very topic, apparently it is a problem.

If this is such an apparent problem, then, please clearly and succinctly define:
1.  What the problem is
2.  What impact upon any or all of the mission areas the problem impacts
3.  The extent of the impact
4.  How the proposed solution will have a significant positive impact on 2

1. Eleventy officers, some who hold positions that an NCO should/could have.
2. 21 year old captains without real world experience commanding 45 year old majors and Lt Cols.
3. A more diverse base of SM to draw from. Personally, I'd drop the oak leaves for TSGT in a heartbeat to do my job.
4. NCOs leading ground teams. NCOs holding support positions that officers in the Real Military don't. Gives us more options

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 18, 2014, 02:26:37 PM
3. A more diverse base of SM to draw from. Personally, I'd drop the oak leaves for TSGT in a heartbeat to do my job.

As would I, except I would be dropping railway tracks.  I am a support person with no aspiration to command.

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 18, 2014, 02:26:37 PM
1. Eleventy-Twelveteen officers, some who hold positions that an NCO should/could have.

FTFY. Also, since authority is not connected to grade. Where do the replacements come from?

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 18, 2014, 02:26:37 PM
2. 21 year old captains without real world experience commanding 45 year old majors and Lt Cols.

This does not fix or address the issue in any way.

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 18, 2014, 02:26:37 PM
3. A more diverse base of SM to draw from.

From where? Please link to the studies, polls, or other relevent public data that NHQ has published which shows the
significant new-member pool that is waiting in the wings for nothing more then "stripes vs. shiny" to join.

I would personally hazard that today there are more current and former military NCOs already serving as CAP
members wearing CAP officer grade, and who could not care less about this conversation, then there are non-member
NCOs waiting to join but holding off because they would have to wear metal.

By a long shot

Quote from: Garibaldi on October 18, 2014, 02:26:37 PM
4. NCOs leading ground teams. NCOs holding support positions that officers in the Real Military don't. Gives us more options

"Options"?  Please clarify.

Does this mean Wing CCs can't be GTLs or on a UDF team?  NCOs can't serve on air crew?  What about ICS staff?
Is GBD a Chief?  How about Admin Officer? Many have suggested that the steretypical "not my job I work for a living"
nonsense would apply to CAP NCOs. So we actually give license to people to specialize and disavow the only actual "work" of a CAP unit or HQ?

The result of that logic is even more empty lines on the org charts and ICS staff rosters then we already have.

Again, this reasoning pre-supposes a full reboot of CAP's entire structure, end-to-end, including all functional roles being
re-scoped to "match" the supposed "proper" grade.

Except that will never work in a volunteer paradigm, because for starters, CAP is undermanned by 30-50% to even consider
this type of restructure.

Start here:

Look at the typical Unit, Group, wing or Region org chart and count the fully empty spaces.

Then filter out all the people who are multi-booked at either their assigned echelon, or worse, at multiple echelons.

Then multiply by two, because each position needs a deputy or assistant.

Say for arguments sake there are 1100 charters, each with 5 slots open - that's 5500 NEW members needed
today, simply to fill the org chart properly, and doesn't account for the far too many units with 2-3 times
that many open slots.  I personally know of wings with 25-30 open slots, many in critical positions, so 5500
isn't likely even close.  I'd WAG its more like 15000 members we are short just to fill slots - that's not mission focus, that O&A
which is, by far, what the majority of members are involved in.

That makes no assertion of filtering jobs based on grade or status in 99% of the cases, even wing and National command,
if you want the job you can have it.

Show me the plan that grows 15-20,000 new members within the same time frame as the implementation of the
reboot and we can talk.  Reboot, not just "NCOs are the backbone of CAP" rhetoric with no plan to how that translates to the real world.

Make sure it encompasses the attrition when you start telling aircrews who don't qualify as officers they can't fly anymore
and people in it just for Ground SAR that they have to assume REMF jobs.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2014, 10:58:43 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
You seem intent on putting me in a box... why is that?

For pretty much the same reason you'd give me if I started offering "advice" and "comment"
about the Army's uniforms and professional development.

Ned, Lordmonor, NIN, and any number of others can go 10 rounds because we, have relevent experience dealing with the situation. You don't, and your experience doesn't apply.

That's the risk in bringing in people at too high a level day one - those people think CAP is "just like
those other things I did...". It's not for 10 reasons CAP is unique from any other organization in
the know multiverse which is why people who think they understand it, without being >in< it,
generally have no idea what they are talking about.

Actually I'd welcome comments from outside the Army about how our uniforms look because the comments will most likely be about how we actually look and not how we think we look.

The same for professional development, we (the Army) don't hold the patent on the only way to develope Soldiers and/or Leaders... outside ideas can be good for overall growth.

And I'm sorry CAP is not as unique as you think it is, that's tunnel vision from inside the tunnel.

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on October 17, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
To think outside the box, you kinda have to be out of the box.

Actually, no. You need to have pertinent experience and an in-depth knowledge of the parts in the box in the first place to change the status quo in a positive manner.

Imagine briefly what your thoughts would be if you were to describe on an internet forum the issues going on around your security post and someone with no true understanding of those issues beyond what (s)he read were to tell you how to fix all of your problems. Would you accept the proposed solution or would you attempt to politely explain to that person the (s)he has no idea what (s)he is talking about?

Based on my understanding that you are patron member with perhaps one renewal and have never attended a CAP meeting or function, I would think you should be able to understand why you get push-back on ideas where you are not well-versed in the issues you are trying to solve.

Sir,

I've been to several CAP functions as a guest of members who were trying to recruit me.

Many years ago when I was still a Cadet in ROTC, I had several brother Cadets that were in CAP and we attended some training events for Ground Teams which we believed would help us in our orienteering skills development.

More recently I've attended several holiday parties and award ceremonies over last couple of years and had some interaction with CAP Cadets who were referred to me by friends in CAP because the CAP Cadets were interested in joining the Army and wanted them to talk to someone who was not a recruiter.

Also I donated three footlockers full of BDUs to a local squadron because I no longer have a use for them.

Not a lot of experience but I'm not completely ignorant.

Now I've made suggestions, based on my 24+ years experience in Armed Forces and 10+ years experience in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience and a Masters degree in Organizational Leadership and Supervision, suggestions I believe whould help make CAP better.

If you choose to reject them, I would not be butt-hurt. If you find any value in them based on your greater experience, please feel free to use them.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 08:11:49 PM
Now I've made suggestions, based on my 24+ years experience in Armed Forces and 10+ years experience in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience and a Masters degree in Organizational Leadership and Supervision, suggestions I believe whould help make CAP better.

And interestingly, with all that irrelevant experience, your suggestions are inappropriate.

The kid who lives next door to me was a Marine, guess I need to give General Dunford a call before he loses his way!

Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 08:11:49 PM

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on October 17, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 16, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
To think outside the box, you kinda have to be out of the box.

Actually, no. You need to have pertinent experience and an in-depth knowledge of the parts in the box in the first place to change the status quo in a positive manner.

Imagine briefly what your thoughts would be if you were to describe on an internet forum the issues going on around your security post and someone with no true understanding of those issues beyond what (s)he read were to tell you how to fix all of your problems. Would you accept the proposed solution or would you attempt to politely explain to that person the (s)he has no idea what (s)he is talking about?

Based on my understanding that you are patron member with perhaps one renewal and have never attended a CAP meeting or function, I would think you should be able to understand why you get push-back on ideas where you are not well-versed in the issues you are trying to solve.

Sir,

I've been to several CAP functions as a guest of members who were trying to recruit me.

Many years ago when I was still a Cadet in ROTC, I had several brother Cadets that were in CAP and we attended some training events for Ground Teams which we believed would help us in our orienteering skills development.

More recently I've attended several holiday parties and award ceremonies over last couple of years and had some interaction with CAP Cadets who were referred to me by friends in CAP because the CAP Cadets were interested in joining the Army and wanted them to talk to someone who was not a recruiter.

Also I donated three footlockers full of BDUs to a local squadron because I no longer have a use for them.

Not a lot of experience but I'm not completely ignorant.

Now I've made suggestions, based on my 24+ years experience in Armed Forces and 10+ years experience in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience and a Masters degree in Organizational Leadership and Supervision, suggestions I believe whould help make CAP better.

If you choose to reject them, I would not be butt-hurt. If you find any value in them based on your greater experience, please feel free to use them.

If only you would step into the existing CAP organization on an active basis and seek a leadership role where you could possibly affect CAP programs (Cadet or otherwise), even if simply at the local level.  Think of all that you could accomplish with your MS in OL&S and "... 24+ years in Armed Forces and 10+ years in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience ...".

But instead, you've chosen to go to occasional CAP parties and awards functions, donate BDU's that you have no further use for and cut your annual Patron Membership check (a little over half of what a Full Membership typically costs, by the way), and then spend your time posting here on CAP Talk discussing Senior Member advancement issues you are not a part of or the colors/shades of the pantaloons of a CAP uniform you are not permitted to wear - http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19359.20. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19359.20.)  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Oscar?

Even as 'just' a Patron Member, you could be spending whatever free time you might have writing up leadership lesson plans and exercises, based upon your voluminous education and tremendous experience in things mil as shown above, and passing them off to a local Cadet squadron.  The Senior Members there would doubtless be very appreciative as they are likely way too busy doing their 'part-time' best fulfilling National's/Wing's/Group's admin requirements in successfully running a Squadron to be worried about what shade of grey slacks their comrades happen to be wearing.

Feel free to step up to the plate (see first paragraph) any time at all, and let us all know when you've actually got some skin in this game.  I for one would be interested in seeing how that might work out for you.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 18, 2014, 09:51:13 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 18, 2014, 08:11:49 PM
Now I've made suggestions, based on my 24+ years experience in Armed Forces and 10+ years experience in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience and a Masters degree in Organizational Leadership and Supervision, suggestions I believe whould help make CAP better.

And interestingly, with all that irrelevant experience, your suggestions are inappropriate.

The kid who lives next door to me was a Marine, guess I need to give General Dunford a call before he loses his way!

Inappropriate... how?  ???

And if you are friends with the General and you think he could help, then by all means Sir, contact him.

Quote from: Bobble on October 18, 2014, 09:55:52 PM
If only you would step into the existing CAP organization on an active basis and seek a leadership role where you could possibly affect CAP programs (Cadet or otherwise), even if simply at the local level.  Think of all that you could accomplish with your MS in OL&S and "... 24+ years in Armed Forces and 10+ years in Law Enforcement and 15+ years of private security experience ...".

But instead, you've chosen to go to occasional CAP parties and awards functions, donate BDU's that you have no further use for and cut your annual Patron Membership check (a little over half of what a Full Membership typically costs, by the way), and then spend your time posting here on CAP Talk discussing Senior Member advancement issues you are not a part of or the colors/shades of the pantaloons of a CAP uniform you are not permitted to wear - http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19359.20. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19359.20.)  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Oscar?

Even as 'just' a Patron Member, you could be spending whatever free time you might have writing up leadership lesson plans and exercises, based upon your voluminous education and tremendous experience in things mil as shown above, and passing them off to a local Cadet squadron.  The Senior Members there would doubtless be very appreciative as they are likely way too busy doing their 'part-time' best fulfilling National's/Wing's/Group's admin requirements in successfully running a Squadron to be worried about what shade of grey slacks their comrades happen to be wearing.

Feel free to step up to the plate (see first paragraph) any time at all, and let us all know when you've actually got some skin in this game.  I for one would be interested in seeing how that might work out for you.

And I just might, last year was a little busy, finished my Masters, completed Command and General Staff College for the USAR and attended the VA's Police Academy.

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so "She-who-must-be-Obeyed" and I are still adjusting to our new Princess in our lives but as life calms down a bit and I've now got a set shift at work, finding time to support the USCGAux and CAP will come off the back burner is better "maybe" than when I first started posting here.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month

May I be among the first here to offer congratulations!  (They know what causes that now, by the way.)

Jack

Thank you Sir!  :)

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so ..

Congratulations. In Chinese astrology she is a horse. That is a good thing.  :clap:

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 19, 2014, 07:43:13 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so ..

Congratulations. In Chinese astrology she is a horse. That is a good thing.  :clap:

As a fellow Horse (1990), I agree!

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so "She-who-must-be-Obeyed" and I are still adjusting to our new Princess in our lives but as life calms down a bit and I've now got a set shift at work, finding time to support the USCGAux and CAP will come off the back burner is better "maybe" than when I first started posting here.

Congratulations on the new arrival!

You are now launched on an "interesting" course of your life! Enjoy it to its fullest.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM
And I just might, last year was a little busy, finished my Masters, completed Command and General Staff College for the USAR and attended the VA's Police Academy.

You forgot to include your volunteering as the Sgt. At Arms at AL Munster Post 16.  And yet, despite all that, you were still somehow able to find the time to spend 5 days, 16 hours and 11 minutes (as of 10/19/14 @2353) logged in here at CAP Talk since your join date of 06/11/13 plugging in those 675 comments, 53% of which were in the "Uniforms and Awards" category regarding uniforms and awards you are not authorized to wear.

Awesome-Sauce! But I'm still interested in hearing back when "might' becomes something a bit more concrete (like CPO, CDC, CDS, CD, or CC at a local Squadron).

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 16, 2014, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 16, 2014, 02:08:13 AM
How about this one.

For the general guy off the street, no special qualifications, no prior military, no nothing....just a 18 year old wishing to serve.

Joins up as an Airman Basic, six moths gets Amn, 10 months later A1C, after three years he gets SrA.

At that point he can (if he qualifies) go to a CAP OTS (sort of like RCS but different) and at the four year mark puts on 2d Lt.

If he can't go officer, he gos to a CAP NCO School and at the four year mark puts on SSgt.

For those non-prior military types with special qualifications CAP is looking for (Pilots, Lawyers, Chaplains, etc)....they join at the six month mark they put on FO, at the sixteen month mark they put on TFO, and at three years they put on SFO....they then go to the OTS and put on 2d Lt.

Prior military personnel can AFTER SIX MONTHS apply for and be appointed to appropriate CAP grade.

Just to point out.....this is my own little ideal, I have no idea if the NCO corps team is working on something like this.

I like your ideal.   :clap:

I couldn't agree more.

I see where the organization is going with this. We are ramping up the professionalism of our volunteers.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH EMBRACING CHANGE INSTEAD OF THE SAME OL' STATUS QUO. Doesn't the status quo excuse get old?

Also, instead of slamming the potential idea of a college education, remember that military commissioning programs don't necessarily require formal college degrees. In some programs its only the number of college credits or hours. Don't believe me, check out the appointment requirements of a chaplain.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the most important aspect is that the program has the CSAF's attention. We should embrace it and try to make it work. Failure to do so, may have more of an impact on the future of this organization than you think.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PMWe are ramping up the professionalism of our volunteers.

Really?  How?

Also, Lordmonor's idea isn't "the" idea it's just "his" idea.

All CAP is doing is changing the drapes because fixing the roof is to hard.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PM
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the most important aspect is that the program has the CSAF's attention.

And as mentioned, it squandered that attention with a per project instead of addressing issues important to CAP's long term viability.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2014, 02:10:48 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PMWe are ramping up the professionalism of our volunteers.

Really?  How?

Also, Lordmonor's idea isn't "the" idea it's just "his" idea.

All CAP is doing is changing the drapes because fixing the roof is to hard.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PM
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the most important aspect is that the program has the CSAF's attention.

And as mentioned, it squandered that attention with a per project instead of addressing issues important to CAP's long term viability.

Did you ever consider that a NCO Program may be part of the issue?

So often in this forum, members (and non-members) espouse those ideas that are important to them because ultimately they can't move mountains on their own and they try to drum up support from the field. So often the opponents only receive scorn if they agree or disagree with something.

I was around when the NCO program was eliminated in this organization and from the Air Force side, I found out why. When that issue keeps being aired in this forum, someone else keeps coming up with the idea that there should be no ranks but that runs counter to how the organization was originally formed and what tends to attract the members.

Ultimately, true the CAP has its flaws. Ultimately this program has its flaws, but you have to start somewhere.

Quote from: Bobble on October 20, 2014, 12:13:32 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM
And I just might, last year was a little busy, finished my Masters, completed Command and General Staff College for the USAR and attended the VA's Police Academy.

You forgot to include your volunteering as the Sgt. At Arms at AL Munster Post 16.  And yet, despite all that, you were still somehow able to find the time to spend 5 days, 16 hours and 11 minutes (as of 10/19/14 @2353) logged in here at CAP Talk since your join date of 06/11/13 plugging in those 675 comments, 53% of which were in the "Uniforms and Awards" category regarding uniforms and awards you are not authorized to wear.

Awesome-Sauce! But I'm still interested in hearing back when "might' becomes something a bit more concrete (like CPO, CDC, CDS, CD, or CC at a local Squadron).

While I'm still a member of Post 16, I had to let the SAA position go, no time and haven't attended a meeting in many moons for the same reason.

Most on my online posts are made while working non-patrol duties (i.e. sitting in a Gate House or operating dispatch) where I can multi-task when things are slow.

As to your stats check, thanks for the break down. I post a lot in uniforms because uniforms, awards and decorations are a hobby of mine and in almost every command I've served in, when it came to medals and ribbons, I was/am the subject matter expert. Putting together other Soldiers ribbon racks and assisting with getting their uniforms ready for DA Photos and Boards was something I've always done.

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 19, 2014, 08:38:40 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 19, 2014, 07:43:13 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so ..

Congratulations. In Chinese astrology she is a horse. That is a good thing.  :clap:

As a fellow Horse (1990), I agree!

What's the cut off date? I'm on the 9th and I was told I was a Dog.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 03:02:19 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2014, 02:10:48 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PMWe are ramping up the professionalism of our volunteers.

Really?  How?

Also, Lordmonor's idea isn't "the" idea it's just "his" idea.

All CAP is doing is changing the drapes because fixing the roof is to hard.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 01:27:29 PM
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the most important aspect is that the program has the CSAF's attention.

And as mentioned, it squandered that attention with a per project instead of addressing issues important to CAP's long term viability.

Did you ever consider that a NCO Program may be part of the issue?

So often in this forum, members (and non-members) espouse those ideas that are important to them because ultimately they can't move mountains on their own and they try to drum up support from the field. So often the opponents only receive scorn if they agree or disagree with something.

I was around when the NCO program was eliminated in this organization and from the Air Force side, I found out why. When that issue keeps being aired in this forum, someone else keeps coming up with the idea that there should be no ranks but that runs counter to how the organization was originally formed and what tends to attract the members.

Ultimately, true the CAP has its flaws. Ultimately this program has its flaws, but you have to start somewhere.

Sir,

If I may ask, why was the NCO program originally eliminated from CAP?

As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't understand why I got flamed for suggesting that CAP convert everyone to Warrant Officers and only have temporary commissioned rank for those currently holding command positions.

Education level plus time in CAP Service equals to WO1 - CW5. You show progression via your permanent Warrant Grade and the ones actually in charge hold rank so you don't have the visual confusion (to the public at large) of a CPT directing a flock of LTCs.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 04:23:26 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't understand why I got flamed for suggesting that CAP convert everyone to Warrant Officers and only have temporary commissioned rank for those currently holding command positions.

Education level plus time in CAP Service equals to WO1 - CW5. You show progression via your permanent Warrant Grade and the ones actually in charge hold rank so you don't have the visual confusion (to the public at large) of a CPT directing a flock of LTCs.

Well, considering that the Air Force and CAP have not had Warrant Officers since the 1980's, it might be a tough sell to get the Air Forces approval on this.
Because the Air Force retains control of CAP's grade structure.  AFI 36-2701.

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 03:02:19 PMportant to CAP's long term viability.

Did you ever consider that a NCO Program may be part of the issue?[/quote]

Yes.  It's not.

Quote from: PHall on October 20, 2014, 05:14:07 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 04:23:26 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't understand why I got flamed for suggesting that CAP convert everyone to Warrant Officers and only have temporary commissioned rank for those currently holding command positions.

Education level plus time in CAP Service equals to WO1 - CW5. You show progression via your permanent Warrant Grade and the ones actually in charge hold rank so you don't have the visual confusion (to the public at large) of a CPT directing a flock of LTCs.

Well, considering that the Air Force and CAP have not had Warrant Officers since the 1980's, it might be a tough sell to get the Air Forces approval on this.
Because the Air Force retains control of CAP's grade structure.  AFI 36-2701.

OK, very valid point.

I will have to review the AFI before I speak on it.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2014, 06:20:24 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on October 20, 2014, 03:02:19 PMportant to CAP's long term viability.

Did you ever consider that a NCO Program may be part of the issue?

Yes.  It's not.
[/quote]

Zeus has spoken from the mountian again.  ::)

Quote from: PHall on October 20, 2014, 05:14:07 PM
Well, considering that the Air Force and CAP have not had Warrant Officers since the 1980's, it might be a tough sell to get the Air Forces approval on this.
Because the Air Force retains control of CAP's grade structure.  AFI 36-2701.

Flamed or not, I support WO's wholeheartedly.

Why?  Because the AF does not have them.  There is absolutely NO way we could be confused with AF personnel.  As well, it could institute a completely different set of promotion requirements for those of us who do not aspire to command.

The AF never fully embraced the WO concept anyway...it was mostly a leftover from USAAF Flight Officers of WWII.

http://www.warrantofficerhistory.org/WO_Prog_Other_Svc.htm#usaf (http://www.warrantofficerhistory.org/WO_Prog_Other_Svc.htm#usaf)

Quote from: PHall on October 20, 2014, 05:14:07 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 04:23:26 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't understand why I got flamed for suggesting that CAP convert everyone to Warrant Officers and only have temporary commissioned rank for those currently holding command positions.

Education level plus time in CAP Service equals to WO1 - CW5. You show progression via your permanent Warrant Grade and the ones actually in charge hold rank so you don't have the visual confusion (to the public at large) of a CPT directing a flock of LTCs.

Well, considering that the Air Force and CAP have not had Warrant Officers since the 1980's, it might be a tough sell to get the Air Forces approval on this.

That would certainly help with our "distinctiveness", would it?

Quote from: Panache on October 21, 2014, 04:10:11 AM

Quote from: PHall on October 20, 2014, 05:14:07 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 04:23:26 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
As much as I am against the implementation of the NCO program in CAP, I do believe completely that it should in no way affect a persons decision to join, quite or not join at all. 

Roles will all overlap regardless of ranks worn.  A Lt Col at a mission base will still make coffee runs for the SSGT working in the Comm shop.  A SSgt will still call his buddy who is a Major "Fred" and in the end, Captain Smith will still empty the trash as MSgt Jones holds the lid of the dumpster open for him.  And when we all meet at Burger King for the after party, none of it matters anyway.

You're absolutely right, which is why I don't understand why I got flamed for suggesting that CAP convert everyone to Warrant Officers and only have temporary commissioned rank for those currently holding command positions.

Education level plus time in CAP Service equals to WO1 - CW5. You show progression via your permanent Warrant Grade and the ones actually in charge hold rank so you don't have the visual confusion (to the public at large) of a CPT directing a flock of LTCs.

Well, considering that the Air Force and CAP have not had Warrant Officers since the 1980's, it might be a tough sell to get the Air Forces approval on this.

That would certainly help with our "distinctiveness", would it?

Sure, just get Air Force approval for us to use them. I'll wait...

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
While I'm still a member of Post 16, I had to let the SAA position go, no time and haven't attended a meeting in many moons for the same reason.

As a courtesy you might want to let them know, since they have you listed as the SAA for 2014/2015 on their webpage.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
Most on my online posts are made while working non-patrol duties (i.e. sitting in a Gate House or operating dispatch) where I can multi-task when things are slow.

Here's hoping your Supervisor(s) doesn't/don't find this thread and speed things up for you at work.  Multi-tasking while clocked in on the job typically means that those multiple tasks are work-related, at least in my experience.

Best of luck.

Quote from: Bobble on October 21, 2014, 05:00:57 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
While I'm still a member of Post 16, I had to let the SAA position go, no time and haven't attended a meeting in many moons for the same reason.

As a courtesy you might want to let them know, since they have you listed as the SAA for 2014/2015 on their webpage.

I'll shoot the webmaster an e-mail and tell him to update the webpage.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
Most on my online posts are made while working non-patrol duties (i.e. sitting in a Gate House or operating dispatch) where I can multi-task when things are slow.

Here's hoping your Supervisor(s) doesn't/don't find this thread and speed things up for you at work.  Multi-tasking while clocked in on the job typically means that those multiple tasks are work-related, at least in my experience.

You mean the supervisor that sits and watches Youtube movies when he's doing the same non-patrol duties... that supervisor?  ;)

Best of luck.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 21, 2014, 12:14:13 PM

Quote from: Bobble on October 21, 2014, 05:00:57 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
While I'm still a member of Post 16, I had to let the SAA position go, no time and haven't attended a meeting in many moons for the same reason.

As a courtesy you might want to let them know, since they have you listed as the SAA for 2014/2015 on their webpage.

I'll shoot the webmaster an e-mail and tell him to update the webpage.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
Most on my online posts are made while working non-patrol duties (i.e. sitting in a Gate House or operating dispatch) where I can multi-task when things are slow.

Here's hoping your Supervisor(s) doesn't/don't find this thread and speed things up for you at work.  Multi-tasking while clocked in on the job typically means that those multiple tasks are work-related, at least in my experience.

You mean the supervisor that sits and watches Youtube movies when he's doing the same non-patrol duties... that supervisor?  ;)

Best of luck.

Just remember, he's the Supervisor, you're not. >:D

Quote from: PHall on October 21, 2014, 02:10:10 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 21, 2014, 12:14:13 PM

Quote from: Bobble on October 21, 2014, 05:00:57 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
While I'm still a member of Post 16, I had to let the SAA position go, no time and haven't attended a meeting in many moons for the same reason.

As a courtesy you might want to let them know, since they have you listed as the SAA for 2014/2015 on their webpage.

I'll shoot the webmaster an e-mail and tell him to update the webpage.

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:08:12 PM
Most on my online posts are made while working non-patrol duties (i.e. sitting in a Gate House or operating dispatch) where I can multi-task when things are slow.

Here's hoping your Supervisor(s) doesn't/don't find this thread and speed things up for you at work.  Multi-tasking while clocked in on the job typically means that those multiple tasks are work-related, at least in my experience.

You mean the supervisor that sits and watches Youtube movies when he's doing the same non-patrol duties... that supervisor?  ;)

Best of luck.

Just remember, he's the Supervisor, you're not. >:D

very good point.  ;D

Quote from: shuman14 on October 20, 2014, 03:15:07 PM

Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 19, 2014, 08:38:40 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on October 19, 2014, 07:43:13 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on October 19, 2014, 01:42:59 PM

My first child was born on the 12th of last month so ..

Congratulations. In Chinese astrology she is a horse. That is a good thing.  :clap:

As a fellow Horse (1990), I agree!

What's the cut off date? I'm on the 9th and I was told I was a Dog.

It depends on what year your were born. Google Chinese astrology and usually one website has a program where you put in your DOB and it tells you.  8)

Year of the Pig.  Oink, oink.

Quote from: Panache on October 22, 2014, 09:19:27 AM
Year of the Pig.  Oink, oink.

I knew my time would come!! All hail the PIG!

Sir

There is a lot of confusion about DOD NCOs comming in to CAP and keeping their grade. According to the NCO Committee training slides shown  in Dec 2014 you can have as many  DOD MSgt, SMSgt and CMSge as you can recruit into a unit, just like DOD LTCs. But you can have only one  in the "promotable duty assignment" at a time (working on Time in Grade, Training Requirments and duty assignment/service requirement). When they get promoted to CMSgt, you take them out of the slot and move in another MSgt or SMSgt. Over time a unit could end up with several CMSgts in a unit.

As for the NCO promotion boards, you have a separate one because the NCOs developing the program wanted it that way. They also feel they know best what qualifications and qualities an NCO of a particular grade should have. By the way the regulations also say that units should have a promotion board for officers too. I can recommend that. The easy part of the promotion board is the time in grade and PD requirements. The hard part is judging the qualities and experence they should have for each promotion. I have an opinion on that but that is a separate thread.

Reguarding the 6 months for promotion, all senior members, new members, former military, etc have to wait 6 months for thier first promotion. 

The two tierd system was developed by the former DOD NCOs developing the program. Two things to think about: 1, this is a new program that will develop and evolve over time. 2, Think about the logisitcs of the promotion board as written. Will it be able to sustain itself or will it be too hard to make work?

As noted elsewhere it is a long term project. Shortly their will be briefings at wing/region conferences on NCO programs/promotions. I would go and become the knowlegeable one in your area.

Quote from: Has been on December 26, 2014, 08:23:23 PMReguarding the 6 months for promotion, all senior members, new members, former military, etc have to wait 6 months for thier first promotion.

35-5 Disagrees with you.

(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)




Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

Quote from: Simplex on December 26, 2014, 10:29:32 PM
(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)

Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

Really? I'm pretty sure that it has more to do with a unit's T/O. But what happens in the Army doesn't mean that it will be accepted by the Air Force where the idea of an E-4 is not really to be an NCO.

The Air Force did away with warrant officers decades ago because it wanted a three tier NCO program of airmen/trainees, NCO supervisors, and Top Three managers. In the Air Force an E-4 is pretty much considered a technician with limited leadership responsibilities. Traditional E-5 to E-6 NCOs are the supervisors and the E-7 to E-9 Top Three Tier are supposed to be managers. It was the implementation of The Senior and Chief Master Sergeant ranks that ended the need for warrant officers because the Top 3 ranks were expected to be able to do the same duties.

Remember that the CAP NCO program -- whether you like it or not -- is basically a test project. I'm a little out of touch with the PME and promotion requirements of AF NCOs, but during my tour in the Air Force, I saw/witnessed/participated in many of the changes that ultimately evolved the Air Force NCO program into what it is today and if done right; meaning keep the CAP to the standard I had to meet in the Air Force, it will certainly be a challenge.

In 1979, I had been promoted to senior airman below the zone -- with only 23 months in service and starting as a E-1 slick sleeve. When I was appointed a sergeant, I had completed what was then called PME Zero or the NCO orientation course in residence and the NCO supervisors course through correspondence and had to be formally recommended for NCO status. There were some other promotion requirements just to put on the "hard stripe" but I don't really remember everything -- just the very formal appointment ceremony where I was administered an oath for my new rank and given my stripes by the wing commander.

It would be exciting to see if CAP could expand the NCO program into the airman structure. It could revolutionize the entire senior member training program but I believe it would be too complex to implement. Also, I personally don't believe that we need warrant officers or flight officers. The people that fall into that category should really be some sort of officer trainees and exposed to their own sort of ramped up program to prepare them for the leadership roles that are so desperately needed in our organization.

Flyboy....I'm working on that white paper right now. 

Quote from: flyboy53 on December 27, 2014, 01:34:52 PM

Quote from: Simplex on December 26, 2014, 10:29:32 PM
(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)

Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

In the Air Force an E-4 is pretty much considered a technician with limited leadership responsibilities.

Interesting. Until not long ago, Air Force Senior Airmen (E-4) could be Military Training Instructors, Technical School Instructors, Military Training Leaders, Recruiters and Supervisors (after attending Airman Leadership School), to name a few. I would argue that E-4s in the Air Force can hold greater responsibilities than in other services such as the Army.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2014, 02:54:46 PM
Flyboy....I'm working on that white paper right now.

Do you see CAP evolving in a way where new members would normally join the organization as enlisted members? It would take decades for CAP to move from an officer-centric to an enlisted-centric membership.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 27, 2014, 06:24:19 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2014, 02:54:46 PM
Flyboy....I'm working on that white paper right now.

Do you see CAP evolving in a way where new members would normally join the organization as enlisted members? It would take decades for CAP to move from an officer-centric to an enlisted-centric membership.

No...it would take 10 minutes to shift the organisation.....it would take decades for all the old grandfathered members to retire/quite/die.  But yes.....this is a long life program I have in mind.   

Quote from: Simplex on December 26, 2014, 10:29:32 PM
(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)




Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

1982 and yes.   8)

I envision a program where folks like me, in an operational field, trade in the bottlecaps for stripes. I'll be happy with SSGT stripes, where I left off in the cadet side.

And this changes or enhances your CAP experience, abilities, or value how, exactly?

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
And this changes or enhances your CAP experience, abilities, or value how, exactly?

When I get done with the white paper you can read all about it.

^ exactly.

... and somebody still needs to make the coffee.  ;)

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2014, 08:53:25 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
And this changes or enhances your CAP experience, abilities, or value how, exactly?

When I get done with the white paper you can read all about it.

Right.

Because all successful initiatives of large organizations work like that.

The leadership makes a big-splash announcement of a new plan, including "approval" by its parent organization,
updates insignia, adds hoops for advancement, adds a bunch of extraneous staff postings to an org chart that already
looks like a tree in January, and indicates the new vistas of recruiting it will open.

Then.

6 months to a year (or more) later...

Someone writes a "white paper" about >why< the already announced and partially implemented plan is necessary and a "good idea".

Got it.

Yep...in my experience yes.   When the USAF took away the Sgt rank.....no one asked me.  They got their experts together who wrote a white paper...that was submitted to the boss.  He liked it, signed off on it....and then bam!  It was implemented.

You asked for how I think it is going to make CAP better and I told you, you have to wait until i'm finished.  This does not have anything to do with justifying the NCO corps initiative.   It was inspired by it....but that's it.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2014, 09:37:11 PM
You asked for how I think it is going to make CAP better and I told you, you have to wait until i'm finished.

To be fair, he didn't asked you; he asked Garibaldi.  ;)

At the risk of thread-drift, I'd love to see a second white paper to accompany it, talking about how the officer side of the house would change in response to whatever Pat comes up with (which I'm sure will be good).

Personally, I'd like to see steps to professionalize the officer "corps," to reduce the Goober Factor. This is not another bash CAP moment, either. In many cases, I think the AF has put up real roadblocks to CAP officers developing the kind of professionalism that AF folks say they want to see in us.

It becomes circular, and not in a good way. I spoke to a BOG member once who told me, point-blank, that the AF is going to keep its distance from CAP "officers" until they have better appearance, bearing, discipline and officership skills. Well that's kind of self-defeating if you ask me; if the AF wants to improve those areas of performance and behavior, perhaps they ought to engage more and get more involved in creating structures that look and behave the way the AF wants?

I think, for example, that it would be a worthwhile investment if competitively selected, high-quality CAP officers (and, in the new scheme, NCOs) got trained and certified to conduct CAP-only versions of Airman Leadership School, NCO School and the Commissioned Officer Training (COT) course. They could do it at locations around the country, like NCSAs are done now, and the COT course is short enough that you could do it in an NCSA-like setting. Not everyone would have to go; but those who DID go might get preferred looks for certain kinds of roles. If you did it in enough places around the country, you wouldn't be penalizing those who live far away from a site...heck, maybe each Wing could do one. It would (or could) go along with the Command specialty track. If you aspire to those kinds of roles, you have to get the higher-level training, so that when we interact with AF officers they would feel more comfortable that we're really talking the same language and in similar places in our progression and understanding.

My talk with this BOG person veered, interestingly, into uniform territory. (For the record, HE made it a uniform "thread," not me!) He observed that CAP would "never get ABUs so long as you've got 72-year-old second lieutenants." It struck me as kind of an obnoxious thing to say, but if it's at all reflective of ideas floating around the AF, then it probably tells us something.

When this person went on to complain about many senior members' inability to wear the AF uniform "properly," I pointed out the roadblocks the AF has put up to members trying to obtain reasonable uniform items, noting specifically the nonsensical hoops we're made to jump through to buy from AAFES if we aren't near a military installation. A price list without pictures? No web access? Ordering with only one or two special customer-service representatives who can take the order? No wonder people go to Salvation Army or eBay to get basic uniform items...if you can get on base, you can buy a blue uniform shirt for $15; if you can't, Vanguard sells you one for $45! How does THAT help the average member obtain new and like-new quality items for appearances?

Back to the issue at hand. I think the NCO thing is a good idea once we have a large segment of membership to be led and guided by an NCO corps. Yes I know, we don't have that yet. But I still think it would be a good idea.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 27, 2014, 10:02:21 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2014, 09:37:11 PM
You asked for how I think it is going to make CAP better and I told you, you have to wait until i'm finished.

To be fair, he didn't asked you; he asked Garibaldi.  ;)

You are right.....Never Mind.  :)

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
Back to the issue at hand. I think the NCO thing is a good idea once we have a large segment of membership to be led and guided by an NCO corps. Yes I know, we don't have that yet. But I still think it would be a good idea.

We don't have airmen, so it would be NCOs guiding NCOs.


Kinda like right now we have Officers guiding Officers, except for the 80 or so NCOs who are there "because they can".

Once a cake is in the oven, you can't change it or fix it from the inside, nor can you add ingredients to it if you forgot something.

All you can do is put icing on it and hope no one actually tastes it, or start over.

I know why you're saying it, but I'm not sure I agree. Change has to start someplace. In an organization like ours, as frustrating as it is I think we have to accept incremental change rather than revolution. Was the NCO program, as outlined, cart before the horse? Yep, it sure was (is). I suspect it moved to the top of the heap because our former Nat/CC was an AF NCO. But so what? We have it now, and it's time to start evolving it to serve a better purpose, just as its time to start looking at the rest of our Professional Development and progressions.

I can think of lots of SMs who probably ought not be forced to be "officers," because in the CAP sense they're never going to be called upon to fill that sort of role. Why not give them a place to be fulfilled, and a corps of supervisors to help them along? Why not start making adjustments? Even if it takes a few years, we may as well start.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2014, 09:04:59 PM
Then.

6 months to a year (or more) later...

Someone writes a "white paper" about >why< the already announced and partially implemented plan is necessary and a "good idea".

Got it.

Solution in search of a problem.  Perhaps the problem has been found.

Or focus the attention and effort on mission and purpose.

Quote from: Garibaldi on December 27, 2014, 08:46:02 PM
I envision a program where folks like me, in an operational field, trade in the bottlecaps for stripes. I'll be happy with SSGT stripes, where I left off in the cadet side.

Are you returning to CAP?

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2014, 10:46:54 PM
Once a cake is in the oven, you can't change it or fix it from the inside, nor can you add ingredients to it if you forgot something.

All you can do is put icing on it and hope no one actually tastes it, or start over.

True. But CAP is not a cake. It is s living breathing organization that is always changing.   So I reject your analogy.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
And this changes or enhances your CAP experience, abilities, or value how, exactly?

Well, if we are really revamping the program, I can see officers as pilots or in command positions, and NCOs in specialties like ground team leader, comm, scanner, admin, all the non-officer fields. I've said that pilots and other fields should be officers, NCOs in support positions.

No, I am not back. Yet.

It constantly amazes me how the Air Force does not understand CAP's history & heritage AT ALL.

We started off in 1941 as, essentially, those too young, too old, or otherwise unsuitable (in terms of physical fitness and/or health) for regular active service...but who still wanted to make a contribution to the nation.

That is what our ancestors in the organization did, and what we still try to do today.

Most adult members will not remotely resemble active duty, reserve or Air National Guard personnel, because most of us are middle aged or older.

USAF doesn't want the 72 year old second lieutenants??? Why not??

Seems to me they need to read a passage from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", discussing the administrative and training role assumed by re-activated retired volunteers, as well as injured personnel no longer fit for field service., during war time; the speaker remarks that these individuals ought to count twice because they freed others for more active responsibilities.

If the Air Force doesn't want an Auxiliary, they ought to just come out and say so...I've heard in recent years that a number of other federal agencies would love to have us!

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 12:59:02 AM
True. But CAP is not a cake. It is s living breathing organization that is always changing.   So I reject your analogy.

It's a "fully-baked" organization, and like a cake, wishing it was devil's food when you mixed it as red velvet doesn't
change the taste.  Sure you can pile other flavors on top, the resulting just being a pile of mess.

Your request for analogy rejection is therefore denied and the matter may not be reopened.

Regardless, it won't be living or breathing much longer if it doesn't concentrate on the real issues and not this kind of time-wasting, feel-good nonsense.

Anyone who wants an NCO program needs to staple their recruiting and retention plan which increases the
>active< membership by 30-50% or more, otherwise it's all just rhetoric, not to mention, that as we've
indicated about eleventy-12-teen times, unless you actually tie grade to authority, the entire conversation is
ceremonial and meaningless, with the exception of creating an unnecessary and unworkable caset system in an organization
which is already struggling with leadership and viability issues.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 27, 2014, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: flyboy53 on December 27, 2014, 01:34:52 PM

Quote from: Simplex on December 26, 2014, 10:29:32 PM
(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)

Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

In the Air Force an E-4 is pretty much considered a technician with limited leadership responsibilities.

Interesting. Until not long ago, Air Force Senior Airmen (E-4) could be Military Training Instructors, Technical School Instructors, Military Training Leaders, Recruiters and Supervisors (after attending Airman Leadership School), to name a few. I would argue that E-4s in the Air Force can hold greater responsibilities than in other services such as the Army.

E-4's as MTI's was one of the reasons given for the breakdown of diciplene among MTI's at Lackland. 
Which is one of the reasons why there are no more SrA (E-4) MTI's in AETC anymore.

The AF does not want 72 year old 2nd LTs? So I am sure they are going to LOVE a 72 year old SSGT... Not. That entire line of thinking is amazingly dumb.

This orginization already skips over enforcing our own policies and avoids "hard conversations" like the plague , why is having people in stripes instead of bars any different.

We all know, and we have all said it on here a trillion times, this is a volunteer orginization. We all know and we have all talked about the people who already struggle with "orders" or "commands". The "I don't have to and you can't make me attitude" is already rampant, throw in some half cocked "NCO corps" and watch out! Can anyone say "us v. Them"?

No offense MSGT, but why are you suddenly issuing a "white paper"? Are you now the point man for NHQ on the NCO idea? I thought  a white paper was already published on this.

This is another one of the many reasons I have hung up my uniform after 15 years of service to CAP.  We have multiple personality disorder as an orginization, can't figure out who we are.

NCR,

I do not think he is issuing a white paper, he is asking a second one be issued instead...

The NCO Program as it is today is only the tip of the iceberg. I can envision CAP as having all members coming in as MSWOG and the requirement for a college degree and /or an Officer Training Course for all Officers. Maintaining manning tables as shown in 20-1 with grade restrictions based on position, command level, and PD.

Quote from: MSG Mac on December 28, 2014, 02:44:09 AM
The NCO Program as it is today is only the tip of the iceberg. I can envision CAP as having all members coming in as MSWOG and the requirement for a college degree and /or an Officer Training Course for all Officers. Maintaining manning tables as shown in 20-1 with grade restrictions based on position, command level, and PD.

Manning tables with restrictions to hold a staff position?  In a CAP universe where members hold seven different jobs at
three different echelons just to keep the doors open?

"And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon..."

You Failed Transwarp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRf1zI2IoWQ#)

White papers are sometime unsolicited.   I am on the NCO committee working on the program.

One of the stated goals of the NCO program is to build a system where we can follow up and make changes in the officer program.

As a basic out line what I envision is that most member off the street will join CAP and enlisted airman basics.....at the three year mark they can either go to CAP OCS (assuming they have the prereqs) or they can go to CAP NCO school.   These would be week long course held quarterly somewhere across the country.....kind or like RSC....but different.   At the four year mark...following graduation of OCS/NCO School they put on 2d Lt or SSgt as the case my be.

Some people.....will come in as Flight Officers (lawyers, chaplains, pilots, doctors, etc) at the three year mark they go to OCS and get their 2d Lt.

Airman and Flight Officers are just worker bees.   No leadership postilions, just doing their ES/CP/AE jobs and what ever staff assistant position they hold in the unit.

During the first three years.....they work on their technician rating.....AND NOTHING ELSE!  You can't start on your next level of professional development until you are in the right window.    During the first three years not a lot of courses that you need to do....the focus is getting your tech rating and learning your job and doing it.

Once you get your stripes or bars......TIG, Duty Performance and the ability/willingness to move up in the chain is what will drive getting the next rank.

Pros......it will look a whole lot like what the USAF does.....and thereby improve our relationship with them.   Rank will means something more then it does now.   (now you can be a Lt Col and never be anything more then a squadron Assistant Staff Officer).  if we tie our rank with "promotable" positions we sill will have Lt Col Coffee Getter....but at one time he/she held a position of authority and is now just be Lt Col Snuffy contributing to the unit and mission with out have to be in the hot seat.  No more promotions to questionable people because we want to be nice.   If you want to be a Lt Col/CMSgt you are going to have to work for it.   

Cons......well it is a change....and people hate change.   The is an element of a solution looking for a problem.....CAP can continue doing what is doing now with out endangering it's existence......it may not ever grow or improve...but it will continue.


Now to address the "focus on the mission instead".  My unit is doing just fine.  We are around 80 members strong and growing.  We are doing all three missions.......and it's my spare time.....so nothing in my AOR is being neglected because I'm working on the NCO program and toying with other ideas on the side.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2014, 03:04:45 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on December 28, 2014, 02:44:09 AM
The NCO Program as it is today is only the tip of the iceberg. I can envision CAP as having all members coming in as MSWOG and the requirement for a college degree and /or an Officer Training Course for all Officers. Maintaining manning tables as shown in 20-1 with grade restrictions based on position, command level, and PD.

Manning tables with restrictions to hold a staff position?  In a CAP universe where members hold seven different jobs at
three different echelons just to keep the doors open?

"And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon..."

You are right....part of the problem is all the BS stuff we have to do at the unit level.

One of my ideas I'm working with in the white paper is also a reorganization of how we do business at the unit level.   Move most of the admin BS higher up on the chain and let the "units" focus more on bushiness of the assigned missions.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 03:13:50 AM
White papers are sometime unsolicited.   I am on the NCO committee working on the program.

One of the stated goals of the NCO program is to build a system where we can follow up and make changes in the officer program.

As a basic out line what I envision is that most member off the street will join CAP and enlisted airman basics.....at the three year mark they can either go to CAP OCS (assuming they have the prereqs) or they can go to CAP NCO school.   These would be week long course held quarterly somewhere across the country.....kind or like RSC....but different.   At the four year mark...following graduation of OCS/NCO School they put on 2d Lt or SSgt as the case my be.

Some people.....will come in as Flight Officers (lawyers, chaplains, pilots, doctors, etc) at the three year mark they go to OCS and get their 2d Lt.

Airman and Flight Officers are just worker bees.   No leadership postilions, just doing their ES/CP/AE jobs and what ever staff assistant position they hold in the unit.

During the first three years.....they work on their technician rating.....AND NOTHING ELSE!  You can't start on your next level of professional development until you are in the right window.    During the first three years not a lot of courses that you need to do....the focus is getting your tech rating and learning your job and doing it.

Once you get your stripes or bars......TIG, Duty Performance and the ability/willingness to move up in the chain is what will drive getting the next rank.

Pros......it will look a whole lot like what the USAF does.....and thereby improve our relationship with them.   Rank will means something more then it does now.   (now you can be a Lt Col and never be anything more then a squadron Assistant Staff Officer).  if we tie our rank with "promotable" positions we sill will have Lt Col Coffee Getter....but at one time he/she held a position of authority and is now just be Lt Col Snuffy contributing to the unit and mission with out have to be in the hot seat.  No more promotions to questionable people because we want to be nice.   If you want to be a Lt Col/CMSgt you are going to have to work for it.   

Cons......well it is a change....and people hate change.   The is an element of a solution looking for a problem.....CAP can continue doing what is doing now with out endangering it's existence......it may not ever grow or improve...but it will continue.


Now to address the "focus on the mission instead".  My unit is doing just fine.  We are around 80 members strong and growing.  We are doing all three missions.......and it's my spare time.....so nothing in my AOR is being neglected because I'm working on the NCO program and toying with other ideas on the side.

Again, how nice for >you<, as well as short-sighted.  When people make comments about focusing on mission, they aren't talking about
>you< or your unit. Which, for the record, is not typical in location, personnel, resources, or mission. Talk to us about the average 8-person unit
in Flyover, USA, not Area 51 Composite.

The fact that you are on a committee trying to figure out what to do with NCOs >after< the program has already started is just more
indication that this is a pet project pushed out with the footsteps of a calendar deadline being more important then the idea.

Further to this, the venerable NCOs are going to be tasked with "fixing" the officer program?  Please.

To your last sentence, CAP will >not< continue unless it grows and improves.  The data is very clear to those interested in reading it.
The patient requires radical, disruptive, and risky intervention in order to save it.  People who are willing to lead, and accept the pain that is necessary
to fix things within the CAP careers and even lifetimes of >current< members.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2014, 04:31:39 AM
The fact that you are on a committee trying to figure out what to do with NCOs >after< the program has already started is just more
indication that this is a pet project pushed out with the footsteps of a calendar deadline being more important then the idea.

As I have stated before.....as of right now the only thing that has changed with the NCO program then what was in place for years and years is that we now have a mechinism to get promoted...we have new stripes.....and we are working on making things better.

QuoteFurther to this, the venerable NCOs are going to be tasked with "fixing" the officer program?  Please.

Well the officers broke it....and it is traditional for the NCOs to bail out the officers once they get in over their heads.  :)

QuoteTo your last sentence, CAP will >not< continue unless it grows and improves.  The data is very clear to those interested in reading it.

Well I don't see the same doom and gloom as you do.....but I do agree CAP needs to improve.....hence the white paper I'm working on.  What are you doing to fix it?

QuoteThe patient requires radical, disruptive, and risky intervention in order to save it.  People who are willing to lead, and accept the pain that is necessary to fix things within the CAP careers and even lifetimes of >current< members.

But what we got is just us.   So here we are.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 04:51:01 AM
But what we got is just us.   So here we are.

Then it was fun while it lasted, the wind-down won't be.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on December 27, 2014, 06:20:50 PM
I would argue that E-4s in the Air Force can hold greater responsibilities than in other services such as the Army.

My MTI was an SrA and had the maturity of a playground bully.  I learned very little from him except how great he thought he was in his prior life as Security Police (as he usually told us every night at nightly briefing), permutations of the F-bomb I never thought imaginable and how to fold underwear, make a bunk and keep your security drawer in inspection order.  I learned a lot more from the other MTI's and was envious of flights who had older, higher-ranking MTI's.

My dad, an Army veteran who was E-4 Corporal in the ArNG and E-4 Specialist 4 (one of the earliest ones) on active duty, told me "An E-4 is a snotnose punk who's not grown up enough to be teaching recruits!"  He said that his Drill Sergeants were mostly E-6's and E-7's.

I could be wrong, but I have never seen a Corporal as a DI in the USMC, a Petty Officer 3rd Class as a Recruit Commander (Navy) or Company Commander (USCG).

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
In many cases, I think the AF has put up real roadblocks to CAP officers developing the kind of professionalism that AF folks say they want to see in us.

Say it ain't so...

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
It becomes circular, and not in a good way. I spoke to a BOG member once who told me, point-blank, that the AF is going to keep its distance from CAP "officers" until they have better appearance, bearing, discipline and officership skills. Well that's kind of self-defeating if you ask me; if the AF wants to improve those areas of performance and behavior, perhaps they ought to engage more and get more involved in creating structures that look and behave the way the AF wants?

It is circular, and unattainable under present circumstances.  I am reminded of the MTI quote I read where he told his Trainees to "ignore" CAP members.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
I think, for example, that it would be a worthwhile investment if competitively selected, high-quality CAP officers (and, in the new scheme, NCOs) got trained and certified to conduct CAP-only versions of Airman Leadership School, NCO School and the Commissioned Officer Training (COT) course. They could do it at locations around the country, like NCSAs are done now, and the COT course is short enough that you could do it in an NCSA-like setting. Not everyone would have to go; but those who DID go might get preferred looks for certain kinds of roles. If you did it in enough places around the country, you wouldn't be penalizing those who live far away from a site...heck, maybe each Wing could do one. It would (or could) go along with the Command specialty track. If you aspire to those kinds of roles, you have to get the higher-level training, so that when we interact with AF officers they would feel more comfortable that we're really talking the same language and in similar places in our progression and understanding.

That would be good...for those who aspire to Command positions.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
My talk with this BOG person veered, interestingly, into uniform territory. (For the record, HE made it a uniform "thread," not me!) He observed that CAP would "never get ABUs so long as you've got 72-year-old second lieutenants." It struck me as kind of an obnoxious thing to say, but if it's at all reflective of ideas floating around the AF, then it probably tells us something.

Others will dispute this, of course, but it reinforces the "red-headed stepchild" syndrome, with no way to get out of it...unless we set upper age limits for our membership.  That might make the AF happy (not bloody likely) but would certainly make us look discriminatory.

Would they be happier with 72-year-old A1C's?

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 27, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
When this person went on to complain about many senior members' inability to wear the AF uniform "properly," I pointed out the roadblocks the AF has put up to members trying to obtain reasonable uniform items, noting specifically the nonsensical hoops we're made to jump through to buy from AAFES if we aren't near a military installation. A price list without pictures? No web access? Ordering with only one or two special customer-service representatives who can take the order? No wonder people go to Salvation Army or eBay to get basic uniform items...if you can get on base, you can buy a blue uniform shirt for $15; if you can't, Vanguard sells you one for $45! How does THAT help the average member obtain new and like-new quality items for appearances?

I would say that the AF's attitude would probably be "it's not our problem," which is again an example of a circular argument.

I know there are those on here who take ill any criticism of our parent service, but honestly after seeing the attitudes exhibited by too many of them toward us I really don't care.  I know that I can wear the uniform as well as they can, and perform requisite customs and courtesies as well as they can.

Cyborg,

In one of the other strings of this website, somebody posted comments made by someone at Air Staff Level back in the 50s about issues with CAP officers. I would argue that our entire promotions/PD program has needed a serious overhaul for years. Our ranks, whether they be NCO or officer, have to mean something not only to each of us as adult members but to the cadets and our parent service as well.

Instead of making officer grade something warranting recognition, we've "dumbed" the program down so much that it doesn't really take a whole lot on the grand scheme of things to get promoted unless you receive a professional appointment as a nurse, doctor, chaplain or lawyer. Its pretty sad when a professional appointment carries more criteria than someone just coming off the street. Imagine what our program may develop into if the officers were held to the same standard of only just the guard and the reserve.

So now we recreate the NCO Program and make it something where only a former NCO can go into the program and advance -- largely because only a former NCO would really know what the grade means and what it takes to get there. So, all of a sudden, it actually means that the NCOs are finally stepping to the plate and developing a program that may be recognized by other NCOs. I would hope this is a start of a change through the entire senior member program because I'm really tired of cadet officers who think they have more authority through their training than the senior members over them.

And for the record about E-4 senior airmen being MTIs, etc., sure I had an assistant MTI who was an E-4 sergeant in basic, too, but that individual wasn't in charge even though he was a prior service Marine with a combat tour in Vietnam. That is something that I'm shocked to think was almost four decades ago and a lot of change has happened since.  BUT, most importantly, that sergeant still didn't have the authority of the Technical Sergeant MTI that was responsible not only for him but the entire flight.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 28, 2014, 01:06:53 AM

Seems to me they need to read a passage from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", discussing the administrative and training role assumed by re-activated retired volunteers, as well as injured personnel no longer fit for field service., during war time; the speaker remarks that these individuals ought to count twice because they freed others for more active responsibilities.

Hard to believe that Robert Anson Heinlein, Lieutenant (junior grade), USN, Retired (placed on the retired list due to total and permanent disability) would have that view.  Shocking.  ;)

Quote from: flyboy53 on December 28, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Cyborg,

In one of the other strings of this website, somebody posted comments made by someone at Air Staff Level back in the 50s about issues with CAP officers. I would argue that our entire promotions/PD program has needed a serious overhaul for years. Our ranks, whether they be NCO or officer, have to mean something not only to each of us as adult members but to the cadets and our parent service as well.

No argument from me on that one.  I always found it baffling that CAP was virtually all-officers (at least when I joined).  I have said before here that, again, quoting my Army veteran dad, when I joined CAP he said "sounds like you've got more Chiefs than Indians."

I will say that in my day it was different in that you did not get 2nd Lt handed to you automatically after six months, or maybe it was just the culture of the squadron I joined (if so, that was all to the good).  Contrast that with the second squadron I was a member of, where pilots signed up their significant others so they could fly in CAP aircraft.  We had a roster full of second lieutenants who never showed up (in fact I never met most of them) or took part in anything except the occasional airplane ride.

I think the way the Navy Sea Cadets do it is better.  You are an "Instructor" for a full year and have to study the NSCC Handbook.  After the year is up, the prospective officer is tested and a recommendation made on whether or not s/he should be granted the rank of Ensign - and it is not automatic.

I would posit that reopening the warrant officer ranks would be better in that it could be a completely different set of expectations for those who do not aspire to command, not to mention that it would add to our "distinctiveness" since the USAF has not had them in a long time.

However, that is not going to happen anytime soon.  I do support the introduction of the NCO ranks, but I think it should encompass junior enlisted as well. 

I just hope that it does not become as politicised as the officer promotions have become.

Quote from: CyBorg on December 28, 2014, 08:03:38 PM

I think the way the Navy Sea Cadets do it is better.  You are an "Instructor" for a full year and have to study the NSCC Handbook.  After the year is up, the prospective officer is tested and a recommendation made on whether or not s/he should be granted the rank of Ensign - and it is not automatic.

The only part I don't like is that promotions top out at Lieutenant Commander ... and from what I've read, that's very difficult to reach.  There is also almost no direct appointment to the grades of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander.  How would we do such a system in CAP, where we're promotable to Lieutenant Colonel and appointable as far as Major General?

Interesting ideas, though ...

Jack

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 03:13:50 AM

Airman and Flight Officers are just worker bees.   No leadership postilions, just doing their ES/CP/AE jobs and what ever staff assistant position they hold in the unit.

During the first three years.....they work on their technician rating.....AND NOTHING ELSE!  You can't start on your next level of professional development until you are in the right window.    During the first three years not a lot of courses that you need to do....the focus is getting your tech rating and learning your job and doing it.

While it is an excellent idea, I don't think we have the experienced personnel available to channel new members into what amounts to a three year apprenticeship...it would be nice if we did, but it simply is not realistic.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 28, 2014, 11:28:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 03:13:50 AM

Airman and Flight Officers are just worker bees.   No leadership postilions, just doing their ES/CP/AE jobs and what ever staff assistant position they hold in the unit.

During the first three years.....they work on their technician rating.....AND NOTHING ELSE!  You can't start on your next level of professional development until you are in the right window.    During the first three years not a lot of courses that you need to do....the focus is getting your tech rating and learning your job and doing it.

While it is an excellent idea, I don't think we have the experienced personnel available to channel new members into what amounts to a three year apprenticeship...it would be nice if we did, but it simply is not realistic.

As opposed to what we got now?   Same people...the only real difference it that instead of most of them putting on Captain....the would be just be putting on SSgt or 2d Lt.     That alone will make us much more credible in the eyes of our parent service and other agencies.  And like I said....I'm also looking at ways to reduce the amount of BS that units have to do and allow them more time to mentor and manage their new people.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 12:08:23 AM
Same people...the only real difference it that instead of most of them putting on Captain....the would be just be putting on SSgt or 2d Lt.     That alone will make us much more credible in the eyes of our parent service and other agencies.  And like I said....I'm also looking at ways to reduce the amount of BS that units have to do and allow them more time to mentor and manage their new people.

HOW? How does a person wearing SSGT make us more credible? How is a three year wait time to do anything basically make cap more credible? This is simply wishful thinking.

Looking for ways to reduce the BS at units? I'm sorry, is the NCO working group now been tasked with streamlining the whole orginization? That's a neat ADY.

Let me say this, as a former AD AF member, 99.9% of the AF (or any other branch for that matter) does not care what grade we wear. Heck, over half the time on this site we all complain about how the AF members don't even know who we are! How can we have it both ways?! Either they don't know who we are or they do know who we are and dislike us because we have some old fogies wearing bars and bottle caps...

Again, this is insanity to be wasting our time and resources on this...

Quote from: NCRblues on December 29, 2014, 01:12:41 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 12:08:23 AM
Same people...the only real difference it that instead of most of them putting on Captain....the would be just be putting on SSgt or 2d Lt.     That alone will make us much more credible in the eyes of our parent service and other agencies.  And like I said....I'm also looking at ways to reduce the amount of BS that units have to do and allow them more time to mentor and manage their new people.

HOW? How does a person wearing SSGT make us more credible? How is a three year wait time to do anything basically make cap more credible? This is simply wishful thinking.

Looking for ways to reduce the BS at units? I'm sorry, is the NCO working group now been tasked with streamlining the whole orginization? That's a neat ADY.

Let me say this, as a former AD AF member, 99.9% of the AF (or any other branch for that matter) does not care what grade we wear. Heck, over half the time on this site we all complain about how the AF members don't even know who we are! How can we have it both ways?! Either they don't know who we are or they do know who we are and dislike us because we have some old fogies wearing bars and bottle caps...

Again, this is insanity to be wasting our time and resources on this...

How does waiting three years before giving someone "higher rank" give us more credibility?   As opposed to our current system of Level I and waiting six months?  You really asked that question?   And it will not just be a longer wait.   It will also be coupled with a system of real PD and outside qualifications that will in prove the quality of people who actually wear officer and NCO rank.

No the NCO working group is not taking on the task of reducing the BS....I said that I'm taking on the task to suggest to NHQ ways to reduce the BS.    I just happen to also be on the NCO working group.  I'm also an advisor to the commander of the Nellis Composite Squadron....and to be clear the Nellis Composite Squadron is not takeing on the task to reduce the BS. 

As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 28, 2014, 11:28:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 28, 2014, 03:13:50 AM

Airman and Flight Officers are just worker bees.   No leadership postilions, just doing their ES/CP/AE jobs and what ever staff assistant position they hold in the unit.

During the first three years.....they work on their technician rating.....AND NOTHING ELSE!  You can't start on your next level of professional development until you are in the right window.    During the first three years not a lot of courses that you need to do....the focus is getting your tech rating and learning your job and doing it.

While it is an excellent idea, I don't think we have the experienced personnel available to channel new members into what amounts to a three year apprenticeship...it would be nice if we did, but it simply is not realistic.

I would argue that in practical terms this ^^^ is already what we do...except in a haphazard, ad hoc, unstructured way that sometimes produces highly skilled personnel and other times produces non-proficient personnel or bored personnel who leave in the absence of any real challenge.

Why not spell it out? Why not put some real gates in place?

Quote from: NCRblues on December 29, 2014, 01:12:41 AM

HOW? How does a person wearing SSGT make us more credible? How is a three year wait time to do anything basically make cap more credible? This is simply wishful thinking.

With grade, it's not the mere wearing of stripes or bars or leaves or whatever...it's the communication of expectations. In situations when AD types don't really know much about us (which, to your point, is often) it's a question of what AD folks expect from SSGTs or 2nd Lt.'s or Lt. Col.'s when they see them.

Their cultural training is to look around the room for the guy or gal wearing oaks...he or she is probably knowledgeable, or senior or more grownup. Except in CAP, there's maybe a 25% chance or better that's not true. When the AD person discovers this (by said person opening his or her mouth and saying something dumb or offensive) we lose credibility. By contrast, when we show up, do the job and blend in, we get brownie points. Learning *how* to show up, do the job and blend in is -- in part -- the purpose of the Professional Development curriculum, and when we do it half-heartedly or pay it lip service, it shows in how we interact with our counterparts. I've witnessed it and it ain't pretty. ("Is that guy one of *yours*?" I was asked. All I could say was "we're not all that way.")

That's one reason I'm not a huge fan of online/distance-learning when the purpose is indoctrination or acculturation. If you're trying to learn calculus, sure, knock yourself out. But if you're trying to impart a shared culture or identity, online-only is kind of inadequate.

I was in the Fire Academy for nine months. In between learning about how to pull hose or throw ladders or open locks or flow water or don our PPE or pry windows, etc. (all physical/muscle-memory tasks), part of what we learned about was how to *behave* like firefighters, how to think like firefighters, what it meant to wear the Maltese cross over our hearts, how to work with each other and get along and live with each other and cook with each other. We took on shared values. Being a professional officer, or NCO, means taking on the professional values and ethos of those levels of position and I don't think our present system does a very good job of imparting those values in a consistent and measurable way.

Personally I'm looking forward to reading what Pat comes up with. Whether I agree with it or not (I suspect I will) doesn't matter a whit; at least he's trying to do something about what he perceives as a shortcoming.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 01:29:03 AM
As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 01:36:44 AM
Why not spell it out? Why not put some real gates in place?

For starters it is literally a physical impossibility to bar members from leadership positions for any set period in
an organization which is so poorly manned that members become key staff members, or worse, commanders
within the first 6 months of their membership.

You are 30-50,000 member away from this being even a remote possibility, let alone a workable plan.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:03:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 01:29:03 AM
As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

My time.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:05:20 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:03:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 01:29:03 AM
As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

My time.

Your last post said there is a committee - that's not "your time", actually that's "our time", and should be spent
on matters that actually matter, not pet projects.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:03:17 AM
You are 30-50,000 member away from this being even a remote possibility, let alone a workable plan.

Or (Heresy Alert) consolidating squadrons so that we don't need 1,500 CCs if we really can only support 1,000...or 900...or whatever the number is. Part of why we have that syndrome is because we've committed to metastasis instead of growth. "Let's launch a new squadron!" Why, if Petticoat Junction Composite Squadron just down the road only has six senior members and everyone wearing 12 hats?

Consolidate squadrons so you have enough staff to do things the right way. Pick some staffing/manning number that's consistent with a mission objective (serve XX number of cadets/potential cadets per 1,000 minors in the AOR's population; crew 10 aircraft with five proficient and deployable crews each; support X number of middle-schools for external AE within a 10 mile or 15 mile, pick your distance, radius), and then decide how many members it takes to do those things. Do what you can reasonably do and promise your local/state/federal overseers...drop what you can't. Staff accordingly.

This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:07:32 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:05:20 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:03:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 01:29:03 AM
As for Insanity to be wasting our time on.......of all the inane things to say on CAP TALK.....but I'll say it is my time to waste.....no one is asking you to do anything.

NHQ isn't on CT, this per project is, and it's a waste of every second that has been spent on it.

My time.

Your last post said there is a committee - that's not "your time", actually that's "our time", and should be spent
on matters that actually matter, not pet projects.

I was making a distinction between the NCO project.....which is my time as well....and my white paper taking on the enlisted thing, improving the officer corps and the eliminating/reducing the BS.   

And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO.  It will help us improve other things about CAP, its organization, training and effectiveness.  It will open the door to improve other aspects of CAP in the future.

That you don't see it....okay.....you are free to disagree.   You are free to write up your own white paper to address what you see as problems in CAP and submit them.   

You are free to punch wholes in my ideas all day....by all means do so...I like the input.   

But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner.   It's my time.   No one has suggested that you do anything at all.  No one is even suggesting that you even change what you are doing in CAP.    If the worst  you can say about my ideas or the CAP NCO program is that it's a waste of your time......I can live with that.

Quote from: JeffDG on December 29, 2014, 02:18:17 AM
This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

At some level I don't disagree. I, too, believe it was a priority for the previous CC and thus went out quickly. I also believe it was brought out in the absence of a real problem towards which it was directed.

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO. 

And that's the core of this - 100 some people, who happened to have a well-placed person who agreed, have set this in motion to
zero benefit and significant risk to the organization.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner. 

Unless you are the only person involved, it's not just "your time" - it's attention and resources taken
from the real problems CAP has.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 02:29:32 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on December 29, 2014, 02:18:17 AM
This looks to be an awful lot of effort to define a problem for a solution that has already been proposed.

Normally, it goes the other way around...find the problem first, then craft a solution.  Doesn't seem to be the case for this.  Seems they rushed a solution out because it was a priority for the previous CAP/CC without anyone actually enunciating what problem it was intended to solve.

At some level I don't disagree. I, too, believe it was a priority for the previous CC and thus went out quickly. I also believe it was brought out in the absence of a real problem towards which it was directed.

That said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

None of which is remotely addressed by the NCO program as presented, or as envisioned by our lone-wolf here.

Personally, I'd say get rid of TIG altogether, and tie grade to the highest position held.  If you want TIG then make grade temporary for some length of time before it becomes permanent.  Then, when you see a "Major" walking around, you know they've held a leadership position in the organization, either now, or at some time in the past.

My proposal would start with the CAP/CC being a Major General.  Then each level down the org as the Commander you go, you get bumped down 1 grade, so Region is Brigadier, Wing is Colonel, Group is Lt Col and Squadron is Major.

Next, you take your "Command Staff" (Vice Commander, Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff) and they get 1 below the Commander, so CAP/CV Brigadier, Region, CV is a Col, Wing/CS is a Lt Col, Group Deputy Commander is a Major, Squadron CD is a Capt.

Next step is "Senior Staff"...basically if the Wing title is "Director of...".  They get 1 level below Command Staff.  So Squadron ESO (Wing is Director of Emergency Services) gets 1st Lt (Major - 2).  Wing DOS is a Major.

Then there's "Junior Staff", basically any other staff role.  One below Senior Staff...So Squadron ES Training Officer for example, 2nd Lt.  Wing is a Capt.

Assistants get 1 level below their "primary".  For multi-hatted, you take the highest grade, so if you're the Wing ESTO (Capt) and Group Deputy Commander (Maj), you get to be a Maj.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 02:29:32 AMThat said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

The biggest issue with CAP PD is that while it is presented and emphasized as being important, it's not
actually required for >anything< except progression, which is also not required for anything.

Slick-sleeve members are made wing-level staffers before their ID cards are dry, while at the same time
members who actually participate fully have their time and initiative wasted chasing down a conference
certificate, or being told "this or that doesn't count" because..."reasons"...the average member does about
two evolutions of that, realizes what a farce it is and disengages - it's only those with a bit more
tenacity, or who finally get to a position where they "know" that manage to press through.  It took me 18 months
before I got to an unlocked door, and I was close to giving up jiggling the handle.

The "fix" is an "all stop"  where members are required to "level-up" their PD commensurate with their
staff and echelon posting, or they are invited to step asiide, and that is just as ridiculous a suggestion
as the NCO program unless you increase member number by 2/3rds before you even start the "fix".

You need 2-3 years of new members with adjusted expectations before any initiatives like this can get traction.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:38:22 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
And....."matters that actually matter" is determined a lot by point of view......creating an real NCO corps does matter, IMHO. 

And that's the core of this - 100 some people, who happened to have a well-placed person who agreed, have set this in motion to
zero benefit and significant risk to the organization.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
But your whole "This is just a waste of time" argument is a non winner. 

Unless you are the only person involved, it's not just "your time" - it's attention and resources taken
from the real problems CAP has.

Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.
Second....again you see real problems CAP has....I think this is a real problem.   I'm working on the one I think that I can actually make a difference on.    As for all the rest of the "real" problems you point out.....okay...maybe....maybe we (the NCO committee) are not working on them......Okay  guilty.  Are you working on them?   Are you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

It is my time to waste.  Until or unless I start making (that is requiring) the general membership to do anything am I then wasting YOUR or OUR time.   I mean I could say that those guys out there doing the day to day CAP stuff of running the CP program and doing AE presentations and training for ES are wasting their time as well...because they are not working of fixing the problems....they are just doing the work.   Just chugging awasy while CAP is in immediate danger of just falling apart. 

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:50:44 AM
Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.

The fact that anyone would suggest creating a caste system within a volunteer organization which already has
attrition, viability, and leadership issues and doesn't understand the risk, makes my point.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:50:44 AMAre you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

Relevance to the issue?

Ad hominem is where people go when their actual point comes up short and they have no response.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:48:26 AM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 02:29:32 AMThat said, NCO program or not, I still believe that PD in Civil Air Patrol IS a problem, and it's in need of a solution. Evidently our top leaders have recognized this for a while, given the notes and minutes of the past few years from their gatherings and the recent moves on TIG. We need more meaningful standards tied to our grades -- whatever they are -- and more meaningful opportunities for our volunteers to benefit from their service by learning new things and acquiring real achievements along the way.

The biggest issue with CAP PD is that while it is presented and emphasized as being important, it's not
actually required for >anything< except progression, which is also not required for anything.

Slick-sleeve members are made wing-level staffers before their ID cards are dry, while at the same time
members who actually participate fully have their time and initiative wasted chasing down a conference
certificate, or being told "this or that doesn't count" because..."reasons"...the average member does about
two evolutions of that, realizes what a farce it is and disengages - it's only those with a bit more
tenacity, or who finally get to a position where they "know" that manage to press through.  It took me 18 months
before I got to an unlocked door, and I was close to giving up jiggling the handle.

The "fix" is an "all stop"  where members are required to "level-up" their PD commensurate with their
staff and echelon posting, or they are invited to step asiide, and that is just as ridiculous a suggestion
as the NCO program unless you increase member number by 2/3rds before you even start the "fix".

You need 2-3 years of new members with adjusted expectations before any initiatives like this can get traction.

And see about 10 pages ago....where this is a long term idea.....no magic bullets in anyone's gun here.   No one suggested that the NCO program is fix all.   I'm not suggesting it is a fix all.  It can be a part of a partial fix of one of our many problems.   But in no way is it going to fix everything.

I'm just suggesting that you don't be one of those locked doors.....as they used to say at basic training Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2014, 02:52:53 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:50:44 AM
Again.....I see the benefit.......and wonder what significant risk you may be talking about.

The fact that anyone would suggest creating a caste system within a volunteer organization which already has
attrition, viability, and leadership issues and doesn't understand the risk, makes my point.

That in and of itself shows that you don't understand anything about how the USAF system work.   

Quote

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:50:44 AMAre you doing ANYTHING for CAP other then sitting here on CAPTALK pointing out where all our faults are and pointing out where we are wasting our time?

Relevance to the issue?

Ad hominem is where people go when their actual point comes up short and they have no response.

The relevance is that you are attacking me for wasting my time....when I point out it is my time....you some how say no it is our time.....so I return the favor....how are you spending OUR time fixing the problems?   I will say that it is showing that I am taking this little argument a little too personally....so I've said what I wanted to say.....when I get the white paper a little more finished I'll post here for the usual round of "this is just a waste of time".....so until then.....Pat Out.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 02:55:44 AM
I'm just suggesting that you don't be one of those locked doors.....as they used to say at basic training Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Lead - that's funny...

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 03:00:12 AM
That in and of itself shows that you don't understand anything about how the USAF system work.

So you're saying the NCO/Officer relationship is not a caste system specifically divided by duty into doers and managers?

Please, enlighten us.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2014, 03:00:12 AM
The relevance is that you are attacking me for wasting my time....when I point out it is my time....you some how say no it is our time.....so I return the favor....how are you spending OUR time fixing the problems?

Again, missed the point.

Your time writing a white paper is your time to waste, however your time spent on a national committee focusing on trying to shoehorn
an NCO program into an already fully-baked and semi-functional organization >is< a waste of "our" time on a CAP level because
it takes attention and focus of national leadership away from actual CAP problems.

The idea that you're just "some guy" who is personally writing an unsolicited white paper that will get the same
"chain-of-command-submission" attention as anyone else in CAP is somewhat disingenuous, since, you know, you're sitting on,
and likely a leading voice within, the NCO Program committee.

The thing about the NCO program is, nobody has ever enunciated the "problem" is or quantified it in any meaningful way, let alone provided measurable ways that the NCO Program solves this mythical problem. They just say "There's obviously a problem" without ever actually saying what it is.  That's one of two common logical fallacies:  Begging the question or Proof by repeated assertion.

Quote from: JeffDG on December 29, 2014, 03:17:23 AM
The thing about the NCO program is, nobody has ever enunciated the "problem" is or quantified it in any meaningful way, let alone provided measurable ways that the NCO Program solves this mythical problem. They just say "There's obviously a problem" without ever actually saying what it is.  That's one of two common logical fallacies:  Begging the question or Proof by repeated assertion.

From my limited perch, I see a problem (it may not be *the* problem) in that CAP shoehorns people into officer slots who really ought to be NCOs. An actual NCO program, with SMWOGs to lead, would be one step toward addressing this. If a person wants to be a GTL, or a radio operator, or an MSA, or a CP person, etc., etc., and do nothing more then why make them go through a program that results in their pinning on grade that leads others to expect things of them that are unwarranted? I think that's why you see a lot of people who stop right after Level 1. They are happy doing "their thing," whatever it is, and are uninterested in supervision or leadership in any way. And that's fine.

Properly executed, the NCO program would recognize the unstated reality we are already experiencing: the vast majority of those permanent 2nd Lt.s would be just as happy to be permanent SMs, SSGTs or whatever. They are more interested in advancing in their specialty than in grade. If we tied grade to responsibility, training and experience, then it would have more meaning.

And I remain concerned about the indoctrination/cultural issue I raised earlier. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we pin people with big time grade but don't prepare them to meet the expectations that kind of grade carries.

By the way, I jumped off the thread looking for your TIG proposal from a year and a half ago, only to find that you reposted it here. I agree with that approach, wholeheartedly. The only thing I would add is appropriate PD and specialty training to go along with those levels. I think NIN posted on it a year or two ago, that people at RSC shouldn't be learning how to "write a speech" or do close-order drill.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 03:35:02 AM
From my limited perch, I see a problem (it may not be *the* problem) in that CAP shoehorns people into officer slots who really ought to be NCOs. An actual NCO program, with SMWOGs to lead, would be one step toward addressing this. If a person wants to be a GTL, or a radio operator, or an MSA, or a CP person, etc., etc., and do nothing more then why make them go through a program that results in their pinning on grade that leads others to expect things of them that are unwarranted? I think that's why you see a lot of people who stop right after Level 1. They are happy doing "their thing," whatever it is, and are uninterested in supervision or leadership in any way. And that's fine.

Except that's only the way CAP works in someone's fantasy of a properly manned organization.

The reality is that the average member is a Mission Pilot (Captain), GTL (NCO), >and< a CP person (maybe NCSA director or staff) (1st Lt?). So you cut off your nose and limit what people can do without adding more people >FIRST<?

Further, how long does that GTL NCO stick around with few missions and little activity?  Today he's an encampment staffer or O-ride pilot on the down cycle.  In the above, he's just benched with nothing to do.

And how long do you thing people will stick around if they are forced to only do Admin or Logistics because they are Lts and ES is an enlistedman's game? Certainly there are a small number of people who join and never leave the back office, more power to them, but the majority of members see staff service as "payment" for access to interesting activities and unusual resources, etc.   

ORMS does not stir men's souls.

^^^^^^

All fair points. And I'll go back to what I said a few posts back...your nominal Mission Pilot/GTL/CP guy isn't wearing umpteen hats if his tiny six-person squadron gets merged with seven other tiny six-person squadrons in the immediate area. Now you've got 48 folks...enough to have one CC, one CDC, one CDS and so on.

I still see in my squadron a large number of people who are active and engaged, but utterly uninterested in moving beyond their present grade. The specialty excites them (except Logistics...  ;) ) but the rest of it generates a big "meh." If they want to stay 2nd Lt.'s all their lives, why not give them a way to stay in a non-officer status.

I disagree that we're 30,000 members away from being able to pull this off -- we're 30K members away if we insist on continuing to have 1,600-plus "squadrons" when a large number of those units really ought to be flights. Consolidate, and now you can make this work with smaller numbers. It also makes JeffDG's officer-grade/billet system work better, too.

And we're pretty busy; we get called out on real-world SAR or missing-persons missions several times per year; we also do Fertile Keynote, counterdrug and other flying. Our GTs are part of those missing-persons searches, so they're busy too. Just this past year, we did the balloon search and the F-15 pilot search, plus if memory serves a disoriented person in the state forest (SARDOC, that was this past winter, right?). We'd love to be busier, but we're not dormant either.

Consolidation of "squadron" tasks won't actually get you very far in reducing work at the local level.  Sure, there are some squadron staff positions that are not at all necessary at that level, but don't eat up much time. 

For example, a squadron historian really doesn't have a lot of work to do and having someone in that slot doesn't really cost CAP much time.  Sure, if they actually do the job (a rarity), then they may spend 10-20 hours writing an annual history.  But, most of the year they're free to do as they please.  There are other jobs like that.

But, the jobs that actually take up a lot of CAP member time are going to have to be done at the local unit whether that unit is a flight or a squadron.  Someone at the local unit is going to be handling logistical work because there is stuff there that needs to be tracked, for example. 

For a very long time I've resisted the idea of tying CAP rank to position as was suggested a few posts ago.  This is one of the things that CG Aux basically does (though it isn't really "rank" in the CAP sense) that I didn't think would translate well to CAP.  I did believe that the CAP PD and TIG system worked fairly well for CAP and made sense. 

But. I think Eclipse finally swung me around with this:

QuoteThe biggest issue with CAP PD is that while it is presented and emphasized as being important, it's not
actually required for >anything< except progression, which is also not required for anything.

He wasn't saying this in support of a rank=position system, but it really does logically lead to such a system. 

I suppose this isn't a big stretch for me as I have previously proposed tying rank to ES qualifications (and I still think that is the best way to go), but I suppose I'm more open to the idea of using administrative position to determine rank if we can't quite go all the way to what I'd like.

On that basis, the NCO system makes even less sense as they have no administrative or practical purpose in CAP. 

Quote from: ProdigalJim on December 29, 2014, 04:17:48 AM
^^^^^^

All fair points. And I'll go back to what I said a few posts back...your nominal Mission Pilot/GTL/CP guy isn't wearing umpteen hats if his tiny six-person squadron gets merged with seven other tiny six-person squadrons in the immediate area.

Non-workable. You have entire Wings, na, regions that this can't work. For example, me. The unit in my town is a one hour drive (one way) from the nearest unit. The secound nearest unit is 2 hours one way. Welcome to rural Midwest.

Are we now going to ask already cash strapped volunteers to go ahead and jump in the family shaginwagon and drive those miles at a minimum once a week? Won't work.

Agreed - it also cuts the legs right off the CP as many of the leaders of those units are also the ES
movers and shakers in a given wing (as well as everything else).

Quote from: ColonelJack on December 28, 2014, 10:10:50 PM
[The only part I don't like is that promotions top out at Lieutenant Commander ... and from what I've read, that's very difficult to reach.  There is also almost no direct appointment to the grades of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander.  How would we do such a system in CAP, where we're promotable to Lieutenant Colonel and appointable as far as Major General?

Interesting ideas, though ...

Jack

I am not saying import the NSCC system lock, stock and barrel.  However, I think the fact that their ranks do require more work to attain gives them more credibility than just handing someone 2nd Lt for (maybe) showing up for six months and not causing any major incidents.  I think that could be one problem the USAF has with our system of granting rank.

As far as I know, the NSCC does not do direct appointments.  I do not know if they have positions such as Chaplains, etc., or if those are provided by volunteering Navy personnel.

The closest thing I know of to a direct appointment with them is that if someone comes in with E-6, s/he can be automatically be promoted to the grade of Chief Warrant Officer, and then (I believe) after a year can be promoted to Lieutenant (j.g.).

It is a lot more complicated than ours...even getting in involves jumping through a lot more hoops than we do.

http://tinyurl.com/NSCCregs (http://tinyurl.com/NSCCregs)

My first squadron was co-located with an NSCC unit and we got on with them quite well.  I remember they got a lot more direct support from the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard than we did from the Air Force, despite their not having any sort of "auxiliary" status.  Their cadets were very squared away.

I have posted this before but a couple of years ago I ran into an NSCC Ensign and chatted with him a while.  He said "I don't know why the Air Force seems to want to keep you guys at arm's length."

There needs to be a separate thread on PD Improvement.

A member only sits for 6 months and puts on 2ndLt if the unit allows this to be the training regimen.  Having said that, I agree PD in CAP is broken (perhaps broken is too strong, inadequate).   IMHO part of the problem here is recruitment and the way many of our recruits view the program.  Many recruits join because their kids become cadets in the program.  The parent views the program as scout like in nature.  To be sure there are some similarities to scouting, but also many differences.  In many cases parents should be recruited as sponsors, and not as Senior Members.  Second issue is the family member that insists they be made Senior Members, when in fact you know you aren't going to get more than cadet supervision from the individual.

Issue two is CAP PD is repetitious and mostly doesn't require validation.  Level I must be passed by exam.  But SLS, CLC, RSC (can't say about NSC since have not attended), even UCC and TLC are not required to be passed, just attended.  This system produces senior officers that don't know anything.  Many unit commander's believe that in order to obtain a technical rating in a specialty, one must just occupy the slot for 6 months.  The other service and knowledge requirements in the Specialty Track pamphlets are ignored.

We have a program that is run by volunteers.  Comparisons have been made to other organizations.  NSCC doesn't require the senior staff of a CAP squadron, there is no actual SM program.  The PD in NSCC is all focused on mentoring cadets and functioning as a NSCC officer.  SDF's have excellent PD programs.  But in an SDF you train or you go elsewhere.  They are subject to a State CMJ, and therefore as organizations tend to be more disciplined and less democratically run.  Lets face it this wouldn't work in CAP.

The best tool we have currently in CAP for training SM's is mentoring.  This assumes the junior will allow themselves to be mentored.  I have bumped into a few individuals, that simply won't submit to being mentored.  This especially applies to retired armed forces officers.  It is sometimes a strain to convince them that they need CAP PD, and that CAP doesn't function like the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy or Coast Guard.

My solution would be to change SLS, CLC, TLC, UCC, RSC into two portions.  There is the same required 12hours of classroom, but add a online pre-course that has to be passed by test.  Doesn't matter that it's open book, if it makes them look the answers up, there is some value added.  This isn't going to solve all CAPs PD woes, but it might be a good start.   

Quote from: CyBorg on December 29, 2014, 01:53:01 PMI have posted this before but a couple of years ago I ran into an NSCC Ensign and chatted with him a while.  He said "I don't know why the Air Force seems to want to keep you guys at arm's length."

Can't compare them except from space.

The NSCC is not a military auxiliary and does not have an adult program or an operational component, and further
they are clearly (and in the case of the Coast Guard specifically) a recruiting component of the military.

They also require the members to meet height / weight and be under 65 (without a waiver) to be officers.

Quote from: catrulz on December 29, 2014, 03:37:44 PM
My solution would be to change SLS, CLC, TLC, UCC, RSC into two portions.  There is the same required 12hours of classroom, but add a online pre-course that has to be passed by test.  Doesn't matter that it's open book, if it makes them look the answers up, there is some value added.  This isn't going to solve all CAPs PD woes, but it might be a good start.

I'd actually go further on this and require some kind of final exam on the major PD sessions, but my suspicion is that this would make
a lead balloon appear viable - those same people who absorb gravity in the back of the room and get a certificate would toss a fit
if they found that their weekend of "sitting quietly" had to be repeated because they couldn't spell CAP, I think this would be a major
source of attrition - you can make the argument that "well that's the point" except many of those people are also warming some
chair somewhere else that someone thinks is important.  You can't shed them without replacing them.

This year's encampment season will be the first complete one where cadets can actually "fail" encampment - it will be very interesting to
see how many actually do, and whether NHQ sticks to its guns.

I agree that conferring PD credit for attendance is self-defeating and a major part of the larger issue.

We had a fail last year at encampment. :)

QuoteSDF's have excellent PD programs.  But in an SDF you train or you go elsewhere. 

Uh, that may be the case in some SDFs, but may not actually be the norm.  Some SDFs have been on a good trajectory of improvement in this area.  Others are more coffee clubs than the stereotypical CAP "flying club" senior squadron. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2014, 11:37:39 PM
Uh, that may be the case in some SDFs, but may not actually be the norm.  Some SDFs have been on a good trajectory of improvement in this area.  Others are more coffee clubs than the stereotypical CAP "flying club" senior squadron.

Or the stereotypical CGAUX "Let's sit around and talk about our boats" Flotilla?

My state has an SDF, but I have never seen any of its troops other than on their website.

I think in the main it's the big states like Texas, California and New York that have the most active SDF's; though I've heard good things about Georgia's.  Ohio has both an SDF and a Naval Militia, but no Air section that I know of.

Guys, I was making a comparison between various types of organizations to illustrate why some organizations can compel performance, enforce standards and why others cannot.  NSCC while somewhat like CAP can be choosy due to the lack of required staff positions to fill.  CGAUX like CAP from what I've been told varies from unit to unit based on the desires of the membership.  Our unit just got an individual that left CGAUX because he didn't want to sit around and talk and drink coffee.

Like wise this move over to a PD discussion.  As a matter of fact the other organization comparison was actually part of the PD bashing session.

Look, if CAP is going to allow NCO's, and they have the entire time I've been a SM (1999), then the there was a need for improvement.  The old requirement that you signed as your last grade in the military and then just stayed there was counter to the Officer PD and promotion system.  It was not equitable.  So, two choices, take NCO's out completely or improve the system which is what is being attempted.  I don't follow all the negativity on this.  If you don't want to wear stripes don't.  If you do, I will respect just as much wearing chevrons as I would wearing stars/bars/leafs. 

Does PD in CAP need to overhauled, I think the consensus is absolutely.  But how about some positive contributions in this thread in support of the initiative.     

Quote from: CyBorg on December 30, 2014, 01:13:42 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2014, 11:37:39 PM
Uh, that may be the case in some SDFs, but may not actually be the norm.  Some SDFs have been on a good trajectory of improvement in this area.  Others are more coffee clubs than the stereotypical CAP "flying club" senior squadron.

Or the stereotypical CGAUX "Let's sit around and talk about our boats" Flotilla?

My state has an SDF, but I have never seen any of its troops other than on their website.

I think in the main it's the big states like Texas, California and New York that have the most active SDF's; though I've heard good things about Georgia's.  Ohio has both an SDF and a Naval Militia, but no Air section that I know of.

Georgia's SDF, at least in North Georgia, is heavy into SAR, especially mountain type. Having sat on my kiester in a van for most of my GT days, it's probably not on my to-do list, unless I am successful in losing the keg. They do stuff with CAP on occasion, but mainly they supplement the ArNG. No weapons. I don't think I will make this go-around as far as entry requirements, but I'm trying.

Quote from: Simplex on December 26, 2014, 10:29:32 PM
(Corporal - (Army and Marine Corps) - NCO.  However, I could not tell you the last time I actually saw an Army Corporal.)




Back in the day the only way to make Corporal was to get busted down from SGT E-5!

Depends on the unit and the commander.

When I was in command I laterally promoted all my Specialist Medics to Corporal, so they had the support of UCMJ action behind their derectives.

For example, A SPC tells another SPC to "take two aspirin and call him in the morning" and he doesn't... nothing really can be done.

A CPL tells you to do it, and you don't, that's failure to follow a lawful order.  ;)