New NCO Promotion Regulations

[abdsp51]

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.

[PHall]

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.

[Panache]

... 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.

[flyboy53]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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!

[Eclipse]

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[ColonelJack]

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

[flyboy53]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[Garibaldi]

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.

[Private Investigator]

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:

[Garibaldi]

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!

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[Eclipse]

that 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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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

[Shuman 14]

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?

[Shuman 14]

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.