The CAP NCO Program - your experience?

[JohhnyD]

I am curious.   

[kcebnaes]

What about the option: "Would be a great program, but to be effective as an NCO Corps, we would need an entire overhaul of the Senior Member program."

[JohhnyD]

What about the option: "Would be a great program, but to be effective as an NCO Corps, we would need an entire overhaul of the Senior Member program."

I agree with the sentiment, but I am looking for opinions as the program stands. I am seeing a "push" in our Region for more NCOs so I am curious.

[JohhnyD]

I did add my response as an option, "I have no idea!"

[TheSkyHornet]

I've already talked about the training matters regarding the NCO Corps in the other thread, so I'll just touch on my take on NCO responsibilities.

In a practical sense, if you're an NCO (wearing stripes), I have a natural inclination to treat you as an NCO as far as duty, responsibilities, and performance. My expectation is that you serve as a tactical manager and trainer, and that you are the frontline supervisor of the enlisted body (i.e., really only applicable to cadets in that regard). You receive orders on the execution of an assignment, and you take those orders and ensure the delegation of supporting tasks are carried out by the lower echelon/team.

If you're an officer, I expect that you act as a mid-level manager at the junior level. You need to be reviewing the performance of the operation and looking at moderate-to-long term plans for improving the conduct of the operation toward the greater strategic objectives as set by higher grade officers. You should be able to progress into being a project manager and be able to develop methods for accomplishing essential tasks through an assessment of risks, constraints, and needs to succeed in achieving your end state goal.

Where I start to see that breakdown is when I have a Captain who takes on the challenge of planning a weekend training camp, and they build a staff team to help provide instruction and manage the administrative and logistical needs of that training camp. Then, I have a Master Sergeant who takes on the challenge of planning a nearly identical training camp, serving as the project director. There is virtually no difference in what these two individuals are expected to do, yet have different grades and titles.

Why is it a thing, if that's going to be the case?

If an NCO can be the lead project director, building the training plan, procuring the logistical necessities, and ensuring the appropriate execution of all administrative tasks, why do we even make the distinction of an NCO versus an officer?

All of that said, we tend to do the same thing within the officer grades, where that same project director of that same activity can be a Major, a Captain, or a Second Lieutenant...and it often depends on whose hand was raised and to which shoulder the sword tapped in the process of bestowing knighthood.

[etodd]

Where I start to see that breakdown is when I have a Captain who takes on the challenge of planning a weekend training camp, and they build a staff team to help provide instruction and manage the administrative and logistical needs of that training camp. Then, I have a Master Sergeant who takes on the challenge of planning a nearly identical training camp, serving as the project director. There is virtually no difference in what these two individuals are expected to do, yet have different grades and titles.

So knowledge, abilities, and willingness to do the job of Camp Director should be priority. Not one's rank or title.

In ES, at a SAREX or actual mission, its all about filling jobs with qualified individuals. Rank often goes out the window, as you have "all hands on deck", and who can fill this slot?  Lt. Col. might be making the pizza run.

Civilian volunteers working together to get a job done. Raise your hand. LOL

[jeders]

What about the option: "Would be a great program, but to be effective as an NCO Corps, we would need an entire overhaul of the Senior Member program."

That would be, IMHO, the definition of a solution in search of a problem, which is already an option.

[baronet68]

I am curious.   

Why did you feel the need to add the adjectives meaningless and useless to the poll options?  Which Civil Air Patrol Core Value is being demonstrated by their inclusion?

The value of any information gained by your poll is negated by the use of inflammatory rhetoric.

[JohhnyD]

I am curious.   

Why did you feel the need to add the adjectives meaningless and useless to the poll options?  Which Civil Air Patrol Core Value is being demonstrated by their inclusion?

The value of any information gained by your poll is negated by the use of inflammatory rhetoric.

Those are direct quotes from prior Captalk members on this subject. Q.E.D.

(And the value of the poll is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, it is valuable data.)

[Jester]

I've already talked about the training matters regarding the NCO Corps in the other thread, so I'll just touch on my take on NCO responsibilities.

In a practical sense, if you're an NCO (wearing stripes), I have a natural inclination to treat you as an NCO as far as duty, responsibilities, and performance. My expectation is that you serve as a tactical manager and trainer, and that you are the frontline supervisor of the enlisted body (i.e., really only applicable to cadets in that regard). You receive orders on the execution of an assignment, and you take those orders and ensure the delegation of supporting tasks are carried out by the lower echelon/team.

If you're an officer, I expect that you act as a mid-level manager at the junior level. You need to be reviewing the performance of the operation and looking at moderate-to-long term plans for improving the conduct of the operation toward the greater strategic objectives as set by higher grade officers. You should be able to progress into being a project manager and be able to develop methods for accomplishing essential tasks through an assessment of risks, constraints, and needs to succeed in achieving your end state goal.

Where I start to see that breakdown is when I have a Captain who takes on the challenge of planning a weekend training camp, and they build a staff team to help provide instruction and manage the administrative and logistical needs of that training camp. Then, I have a Master Sergeant who takes on the challenge of planning a nearly identical training camp, serving as the project director. There is virtually no difference in what these two individuals are expected to do, yet have different grades and titles.

Why is it a thing, if that's going to be the case?

If an NCO can be the lead project director, building the training plan, procuring the logistical necessities, and ensuring the appropriate execution of all administrative tasks, why do we even make the distinction of an NCO versus an officer?

All of that said, we tend to do the same thing within the officer grades, where that same project director of that same activity can be a Major, a Captain, or a Second Lieutenant...and it often depends on whose hand was raised and to which shoulder the sword tapped in the process of bestowing knighthood.

As the only actual CAP NCO in this thread (at least the only one who voted as such) I would LOVE it if I could just handle NCO business 100% of the time.  Most of the time, there's no officer capable or willing to do those higher-level tasks, so I end up doing both.  I would be perfectly content to focus on tactical/operational level leadership, ops, training/program management, and communications.  The officer level of competency just isn't where it needs to be most of the time.  I try to bring in an officer and work in a supporting role, but again, not always available.

There does need to be a distinction, and the enlisted corps needs to be expanded while the officer corps needs to be restricted.  I'm super sick of officers who are doing Airmen-level work (and I'm being generous) completely throwing everything out of whack.  I can't think of any other paramilitary or military organization where everyone is an officer.  It makes zero sense.

I don't understand why we have ad nauseum repeats of this same debate, but I never see actual chaplains in the wild, think they're a solution in search of a problem, and 100% of their actual tasks can be handled by other specialty areas (character development needs to be completely owned by CP and the insinuation that the quasi-religious arm of CAP is the only credible source of character is obnoxious in my opinion.  I said what I said).  But I'll see you guys here in 3-6 months for the the semi-annual rehash of NCO-bashing.

[JohhnyD]

As the only actual CAP NCO in this thread (at least the only one who voted as such) I would LOVE it if I could just handle NCO business 100% of the time.  Most of the time, there's no officer capable or willing to do those higher-level tasks, so I end up doing both.  I would be perfectly content to focus on tactical/operational level leadership, ops, training/program management, and communications.  The officer level of competency just isn't where it needs to be most of the time.  I try to bring in an officer and work in a supporting role, but again, not always available.

1 - Thank you for your service!
2 - Your comments indicate that, for me, the local push for an NCO corps makes a lot of sense.
3 - I will report back in six months about the success (or not) of our local program.
4 - The naysayers we will alway have.

[Mitchell 1969]

I've already talked about the training matters regarding the NCO Corps in the other thread, so I'll just touch on my take on NCO responsibilities.

In a practical sense, if you're an NCO (wearing stripes), I have a natural inclination to treat you as an NCO as far as duty, responsibilities, and performance. My expectation is that you serve as a tactical manager and trainer, and that you are the frontline supervisor of the enlisted body (i.e., really only applicable to cadets in that regard). You receive orders on the execution of an assignment, and you take those orders and ensure the delegation of supporting tasks are carried out by the lower echelon/team.

If you're an officer, I expect that you act as a mid-level manager at the junior level. You need to be reviewing the performance of the operation and looking at moderate-to-long term plans for improving the conduct of the operation toward the greater strategic objectives as set by higher grade officers. You should be able to progress into being a project manager and be able to develop methods for accomplishing essential tasks through an assessment of risks, constraints, and needs to succeed in achieving your end state goal.

Where I start to see that breakdown is when I have a Captain who takes on the challenge of planning a weekend training camp, and they build a staff team to help provide instruction and manage the administrative and logistical needs of that training camp. Then, I have a Master Sergeant who takes on the challenge of planning a nearly identical training camp, serving as the project director. There is virtually no difference in what these two individuals are expected to do, yet have different grades and titles.

Why is it a thing, if that's going to be the case?

If an NCO can be the lead project director, building the training plan, procuring the logistical necessities, and ensuring the appropriate execution of all administrative tasks, why do we even make the distinction of an NCO versus an officer?

All of that said, we tend to do the same thing within the officer grades, where that same project director of that same activity can be a Major, a Captain, or a Second Lieutenant...and it often depends on whose hand was raised and to which shoulder the sword tapped in the process of bestowing knighthood.

As the only actual CAP NCO in this thread (at least the only one who voted as such) I would LOVE it if I could just handle NCO business 100% of the time.  Most of the time, there's no officer capable or willing to do those higher-level tasks, so I end up doing both.  I would be perfectly content to focus on tactical/operational level leadership, ops, training/program management, and communications.  The officer level of competency just isn't where it needs to be most of the time.  I try to bring in an officer and work in a supporting role, but again, not always available.

There does need to be a distinction, and the enlisted corps needs to be expanded while the officer corps needs to be restricted.  I'm super sick of officers who are doing Airmen-level work (and I'm being generous) completely throwing everything out of whack.  I can't think of any other paramilitary or military organization where everyone is an officer.  It makes zero sense.

I don't understand why we have ad nauseum repeats of this same debate, but I never see actual chaplains in the wild, think they're a solution in search of a problem, and 100% of their actual tasks can be handled by other specialty areas (character development needs to be completely owned by CP and the insinuation that the quasi-religious arm of CAP is the only credible source of character is obnoxious in my opinion.  I said what I said).  But I'll see you guys here in 3-6 months for the the semi-annual rehash of NCO-bashing.

I think you've actually proven the point of those who question the need for NCOs in CAP.

The dynamics you describe regarding the CAP officers you've encountered are actually fairly common in volunteer organizations. CAP is one of many organizations where the ultimate focus is on pitching in - many hands making light work. Meanwhile, you are disappointed that people don't respond the way your niche NCO status would demand that they do.

I don't think anybody is engaged in NCO bashing. It seems to be more along the lines of questioning the need for a special category of people who believe they "need" to do something different than what others do, with those others not seeing the "different."

If CAP did. away with rank tomorrow, how would your job differ next week? How would the officers jobs differ? If there isn't any obvious difference, then let's get real and admit what the NCO "program" really is - a formalized way to recognize past accomplishments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mitchell 1969]

(Text deleted due to duplicate post - thanks, Tapatalk)!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exarmyguard]

Just my opinion. I'm prior enlisted army. I looked at the NCO program and decided against it because I felt it would confuse people at my squadron. They can wrap their head around how the officer ranks work, so why should I complicate things. There are very few prior service where I'm at, so I felt it best to keep things simple.

[etodd]

All sounds great in an ideal world. In the military you have the folks "there". Each with their levels, ranks, jobs, etc. and ready to perform. So having all the structure mentioned above is fantastic.

When a real world mission happens in CAP.  The calls go out. And whoever can get away from work/family/etc. shows up. It can be a sparse crew. And at that point its a matter of filling job slots to get the mission done. Rank goes out the window. Its all about ES Quals.

A bunch of volunteers. All with the desire to serve. But for most its secondary to work/family/etc.

[JohhnyD]

All sounds great in an ideal world. In the military you have the folks "there". Each with their levels, ranks, jobs, etc. and ready to perform. So having all the structure mentioned above is fantastic.

When a real world mission happens in CAP.  The calls go out. And whoever can get away from work/family/etc. shows up. It can be a sparse crew. And at that point its a matter of filling job slots to get the mission done. Rank goes out the window. Its all about ES Quals.

A bunch of volunteers. All with the desire to serve. But for most its secondary to work/family/etc.

And in that "real world", it sounds like prior service NCOs can play a very real part. I am looking forward to this grand experiment on the part of local leadership.

[arajca]

Yes. They

All sounds great in an ideal world. In the military you have the folks "there". Each with their levels, ranks, jobs, etc. and ready to perform. So having all the structure mentioned above is fantastic.

When a real world mission happens in CAP.  The calls go out. And whoever can get away from work/family/etc. shows up. It can be a sparse crew. And at that point its a matter of filling job slots to get the mission done. Rank goes out the window. Its all about ES Quals.

A bunch of volunteers. All with the desire to serve. But for most its secondary to work/family/etc.

And in that "real world", it sounds like prior service NCOs can play a very real part. I am looking forward to this grand experiment on the part of local leadership.

Yes, they can play the same very real part as EVERY OTHER MEMBER who responds plays. There no special NCO part for them to play.

[JohhnyD]

Yes, they can play the same very real part as EVERY OTHER MEMBER who responds plays. There no special NCO part for them to play.

Well, except it appears that there is. And you appear to not like it. Odd.

[Eclipse]

What, exactly, is your deal?

[arajca]

Yes, they can play the same very real part as EVERY OTHER MEMBER who responds plays. There no special NCO part for them to play.

Well, except it appears that there is. And you appear to not like it. Odd.

What, exactly, is the 'special' part only NCOs wearing NCO stripes can play? That is the overriding question that has NEVER been answered.

[etodd]

When I walk into a typical SAREX or actual mission ... most of the members are walking around wearing a polo shirt.  There are no stripes or bling to be seen. No one salutes anyone, we don't have a clue what rank anyone is. I just see a bunch of tables with computers on them, and these little paper signs on the front held on with scotch tape. One is the check-in table, another will be communications, another operations, public affairs, etc., etc.

Just a bunch of volunteers with specific quals to sit at a table and get a job done. At the end of the day, somehow it all works.

Its all about qualifications.  (JMHO)

[Private Investigator]

I am curious.   

I am curious too. Are you a Veteran?

Everyone gets something different out of CAP. Some members are content with the polo shirt and slacks. They can do AE and/or ES. Now everyone who does Cadet Programs wear a uniform. If your a retired or former Airman you have uniforms already. Also after being a Sergeant for 20+ years why would you want to be a 2nd Lieutenant?

You have an "epic fail poll" because it is one sided. Also you did not include, "Bacon" in the poll.

[exarmyguard]

Just my opinion. As a past military member, I joined CAP not to extend my military experience, rather to have new experience with a diverse group of people, who happen to be non-military. If I wanted to continue wearing my stripes, I would have reenlisted. My 2 cents.

[AirDX]

The prior service individual that comes in the door and wants to do traditional NCO stuff is pretty rare in my experience. The active, reserve, NG, or prior service NCOs that have come into units I have been in have all wanted to be aircrew or pilots. A few enjoyed the ground team aspect, and all were happy to be CAP officers. I spent a lot of time as a PD officer getting them equivalencies for CAP PD quals, so they could advance in grade.

That said, if I had a former DS/1st Sgt/Sgt Major waltz into my squadron and want to take over the cadet corps in terms of D&C, customs and courtesies, uniform wear, military bearing, traditional NCO-type work as a CAP NCO, I would welcome them with open arms. I'm not seeing them come through the door though.

The bottom line is that we are a civilian volunteer organization. Very few squadrons have so many people that all the niches are filled. If you join and want to support the program, you are going to get management tasks, whether you like them or not. Most of us at squadron level wear multiple hats - not ideal, but reality. We'd all love to shed some of them. The real go-getters among us tend to wind up with multiple hats at multiple levels: squadron, group, wing, region. Again far from ideal, but reality.

The CAP officer structure is not ideal from an outside perspective, but at this point it is what it is. I wouldn't mind being a flight officer, or a warrant, or whatever. All those years ago, though, when I walked in the door, I started working my way up the ladder as it existed and still exists. I've worked hard for those little gold oak leaves, and I'm working hard for the silver ones. Take them away and I will be PO'ed. It's an internal thing though, since I almost always wear a polo shirt when in uniform. Rank isn't showing, and is largely irrelevant. As stated up topic, qualifications are what talks... qualified bodies in jobs. Rank matters not.

I was off on an ELT mission a while back. A Colonel, former wing commander, served as van driver. I, a major, and then wing director of safety, served as general help. And 4 cadets did the actual work of locating and silencing the EPIRB. Did the rank matter? Nope. The job did.

This screed is long enough, so I will sign off... see you in six months for the same debate.   

[Holding Pattern]

An explanation of the NCO program is now available in the Level 2 E&T documents.

[Holding Pattern]

That said, if I had a former DS/1st Sgt/Sgt Major waltz into my squadron and want to take over the cadet corps in terms of D&C, customs and courtesies, uniform wear, military bearing, traditional NCO-type work as a CAP NCO, I would welcome them with open arms. I'm not seeing them come through the door though.

Very rarely do highly qualified individuals just "waltz into a squadron." You want more people, you advertise.

The NCO program gives you a way to advertise for those things. Use it.

[TheSkyHornet]

When a real world mission happens in CAP.  The calls go out. And whoever can get away from work/family/etc. shows up. It can be a sparse crew. And at that point its a matter of filling job slots to get the mission done. Rank goes out the window. Its all about ES Quals.

The majority of CAP isn't people conducting real-world missions.

The bulk of the people are support staff members and trainers, not field operatives. While many of these people, maybe even the majority population of CAP members, are qualified in some form of Emergency Services 101 Card statistic, they're not actively engaged in conducting live missions nor are they actually willing to go out when a call rolls in (and that has varying reasons, whether due to actual interest, availability, or frequency of occurrence in their locale).

So I think saying that the grades don't affect the mission when the call comes in is an accurate statement. But it really doesn't have anything to do with the reality that most members don't go on calls to begin with anyway. I think it's a bland correlation.


The CAP NCO program is, at its most effective use, a recruiting drive to bring in members. Once those members are in the door, they're rarely used as NCOs. I think this comes from the fact that most CAP officers are not prior military, and the so-called "civilians" don't have any distinction in what an NCO is other than being prior service. I've seen far too many "civies" get star-struck by members wearing NCO insignia.

I remember working with our Wing Director of Professional Development. I had no idea whether he was military or not, nor did I really care. I worked under him as a lieutenant when he was a captain. On one occasion, I noticed he was wearing an NDS on his ribbon rack. I thought, "Huh, I guess he is military. I guess that explains the tone." But I thought little more than that. Magically, the next time I ran into him, he was in master sergeant stripes. I said to him, "I didn't know you were an NCO." He told me about his military days, and that he was a CAP officer solely because he couldn't be a squadron commander as an NCO; once his tenure was over, he switched back to NCO status.

Nothing had changed, period. He went from being an NCO to being an officer back to being an NCO. And in my entire time knowing him, over the last five years or so now, nothing has changed other than being able to be called Commander and hold the post for a few years. Other than that, it's the same person, with the same training in CAP, holding the other same duty positions beyond just that one.

Until that point, I was always in that mindset of "The NCO Corps is extremely valuable in ensuring that we have a backbone of members who can help us supervise and execute our missions." After that, I realized that there really isn't any difference. In fact, NCOs are somewhat short-changed (if we're going to treat them as any other members and not actually utilize an NCO Corps as compared to military usage).

I've known other CAP officers over the years who were senior NCOs in the military, and every time I ask them why they didn't go the NCO route, the response I get is, "Why? I can do everything as an officer as I could as an NCO, except hold command." I know a former E-8 who is a Chaplain (and couldn't be as an NCO); he was also a squadron commander until just recently. I know another former E-8 who is a Group Commander. And Stonewall here, as said on other threads, is currently an E-9 who also serves as a Group Commander. 

So really, is this an important subject that needs further discussion?

[JohhnyD]

The majority of CAP isn't people conducting real-world missions.

In my unit we do a LOT of missions. And we train for them, a lot.

So really, is this an important subject that needs further discussion?

I certainly thought so. YMMV.

Oh and we have a growing cadet program that command tells us is the focus for the NCO program, and I am now thinking this is a really good idea. Especially since so many of the "old guard" (read that perennial naysayers here) seem wildly opposed.

[JohhnyD]

The NCO program gives you a way to advertise for those things. Use it.

That appears to be the command intent in my unit. Stimulated, I believe, by the large number of RSC attendees this year.

[Private Investigator]

... I remember working with our Wing Director of Professional Development. I had no idea whether he was military or not, nor did I really care. I worked under him as a lieutenant when he was a captain. On one occasion, I noticed he was wearing an NDS on his ribbon rack. I thought, "Huh, I guess he is military. I guess that explains the tone." But I thought little more than that. Magically, the next time I ran into him, he was in master sergeant stripes. I said to him, "I didn't know you were an NCO." He told me about his military days, and that he was a CAP officer solely because he couldn't be a squadron commander as an NCO; once his tenure was over, he switched back to NCO status.

Nothing had changed, period. He went from being an NCO to being an officer back to being an NCO. And in my entire time knowing him, over the last five years or so now, nothing has changed other than being able to be called Commander and hold the post for a few years. Other than that, it's the same person, with the same training in CAP, holding the other same duty positions beyond just that one.

Good points. What ever it takes to get people to meetings.

[NovemberWhiskey]

The part that's not very clear to me is whether the NCO program is supposed to be establishing specific jobs to be done by officers and "NCOs" (I'm just putting this in air quotes because CAP senior members with officer grade are obviously not commissioned either), and therefore different approaches to training and development.

If not, and "NCOs" participate in the same professional development program as other senior members, execute the same responsibilities etc. then it seems really we're just looking at a uniform variation.

If the uniform variation permits better recruitment and retention, by fitting better with the self-image of (potential) senior members then that perhaps justifies it. But it doesn't make for much of a program, per se.

I am aware of the now-expired ICL 18-06 to CAPR 20-1. By and large, the various org-chart "NCO" roles are to encourage engagement between "NCOs" and other CAP membership, and to recruit more "NCOs". It is almost defined by lack of a specific purpose other than to self-sustain.

[JohhnyD]

The part that's not very clear to me is whether the NCO program is supposed to be establishing specific jobs to be done by officers and "NCOs" (I'm just putting this in air quotes because CAP senior members with officer grade are obviously not commissioned either), and therefore different approaches to training and development.

If not, and "NCOs" participate in the same professional development program as other senior members, execute the same responsibilities etc. then it seems really we're just looking at a uniform variation.

If the uniform variation permits better recruitment and retention, by fitting better with the self-image of (potential) senior members then that perhaps justifies it. But it doesn't make for much of a program, per se.

The NCO program has been a number of things, at least from my perspective. First, well hidden. Second poorly executed and explained. Your post hits the heart of what I perceive as the real issue. From what my unit CC says, it is a recruitment tool, and a way to recruit people with specific attributes that will be very valuable, especially in the Cadet Programs arena. There are finally new tools that have rolled out in PD that supposedly answer more questions. I downloaded them, have yet to have time to study them. (Darn this working for a living!)

[TheSkyHornet]

What ever it takes to get people to meetings.

I think that's a comment to tread lightly with, and it really depends on the individuals that you're bringing to those meetings.

If someone won't stay in CAP because they can't be called this or that, then I think there's a concern about that individual's buy-in for the CAP vision and mission. We reward accomplishments with decorations, certificates, etc. How much do we reward self-gratification?

That said, if we can get someone in who is otherwise hesitant to join, and the final straw that really grabs them is the ability to "be an NCO again," well then, that's a great carrot to bring in someone with that experience. But I think that still needs to have a caution on it, and should really be taken with a grain of salt.

People join CAP for many reasons, and they stay because of many reasons. I don't think a lot of people stick around based on what their title is or their bling. It helps, sure. But I think those that are really in this for the long run, that stay for years on end, do so because they feel a sense of fulfillment. And it's that fulfillment that we maybe don't do the greatest job of promoting in the recruiting drive. On top of that, we really need to push that whole "giving back" part, especially when it comes to Cadet Programs.

I was that guy early on who wanted to get every new member in the door that I could muster because I needed the help. Now I've learned that while I still need the help, I don't want that help from every person who comes in the door. I'm extremely skeptical and picky nowadays because of who I have had that experience with in the past, for better or worse.

If someone is a prior E-8, and they want to join CAP, and I say "Well, if you someday want a command role, you'll have to be an officer," and they throw a fit about that, I'm really not comfortable with how that individual will respond to the other elements of Level 1 training, and any other requirements they may have to undergo. I'll give it a shot, but I'm probably not going to do everything in my power to convince them to join. I've made that mistake already.

If someone is a prior E-4, and they really want to be an NCO, and they're super gung-ho about it; well, I'm also skeptical. This person did not have much experience as a military NCO to begin with, and they may seem a bit eager to jump right in (and I need to instill some patience in them as they grasp the new environment and take it all in).

Former NCOs, even former military (period) for that matter bring something to the table, particularly when working with cadets. But we don't really employ the NCO role in CAP. And I think, unless you're going to use them in that role from the get-go, be prepared to explain that to the individual who wants to wear stripes. There are things they can't do despite being on virtually the same track as everyone else.

[Mitchell 1969]

Former NCOs, even former military (period) for that matter bring something to the table, particularly when working with cadets.

I've been hearing this, or variations on that theme, for years. Somehow we ended on an endless loop of "NCOs are good for cadets, they bring special skills."

The reality is that SOME might, SOME might not. There is no one size, fits all that magically makes all NCOs suddenly become adept at working with cadets. Heck, some of them could be absolute disasters working with them and others may have no interest at all in working with them. It's no different than military officers or anybody else joining CAP. Some can do it and want to. Some are better suited to other tasks and we shouldn't have preconceived notions.

My hat is off to the NCOs who are talented and interested in working with our cadets. But can we give it a rest as to claiming that they are all suited to it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[THRAWN]

What ever it takes to get people to meetings.

If someone is a prior E-4, and they really want to be an NCO, and they're super gung-ho about it; well, I'm also skeptical. This person did not have much experience as a military NCO to begin with, and they may seem a bit eager to jump right in (and I need to instill some patience in them as they grasp the new environment and take it all in).

 

Marine corporals and PO3s, especially Coasties, disagree with this statement.

[exarmyguard]

When I volunteer with the Red Cross, I don't feel the need to put my old rank on. My 2 cents.

[SarDragon]

What ever it takes to get people to meetings.

If someone is a prior E-4, and they really want to be an NCO, and they're super gung-ho about it; well, I'm also skeptical. This person did not have much experience as a military NCO to begin with, and they may seem a bit eager to jump right in (and I need to instill some patience in them as they grasp the new environment and take it all in).

 

Marine corporals and PO3s, especially Coasties, disagree with this statement.

It's still pretty easy to find PO3s with minimal leadership training/skills. Go to an advanced tech school, sign up for two more years, and you have an instant PO3. We called them "rent-a-crows". It is possible for someone to spend over a year in a training environment, be an NCO, and never do real NCO stuff, particularly supervision.

[AirDX]

The NCO program gives you a way to advertise for those things. Use it.

Not so much. Who advertises specifically for NCOs... we're looking for more members of all types, thus open houses, recruiting cadet cohorts, etc. And that person very, very rarely waltzes, sambas, two-steps, or foxtrots through the door.

[Fubar]

My hat is off to the NCOs who are talented and interested in working with our cadets. But can we give it a rest as to claiming that they are all suited to it?

In my experience they're just like every other volunteer that walks in the door. Some are able to leverage their previous experiences to enhance our organization, others fall upon previous experiences that while valid in their context, are at best not helpful to CAP and at worst harmful. For every NCO that walks right in as a value-add is that NCO who walks in and has everyone upturned with traditions and expectations that are not compatible with CAP.

I would think brand new members who are recruited under the guise of "we need super NCOs!" would be confused by CAP's paradigm where grade/rank doesn't actually matter. I know when I interact with military NCOs they are often confused when I explain that no, you're not required to have a college degree to be an officer in CAP and our NCOs do the exact same work as our officers.

I mean even the terminology doesn't make sense. All CAP officers are non-commissioned officers.

[TheSkyHornet]

I mean even the terminology doesn't make sense. All CAP officers are non-commissioned officers.

That moment when the Navy already has this system set up...

Unrestricted Line Officers:
Eligible to hold command; perform a variety of advanced mission roles

Restricted Line Officer:
Not eligible to hold command; perform a variety of advanced skill roles and oversight

Limited Duty Officers:
Specialized skill officers without a Bachelor's degree receiving a commission through a shortened training program (often prior-NCOs)


This is all anecdotal, of course. My point is that we focus so much on titles and ranks when we have enough of a time keeping people in CAP to begin with and performing our mission to a quality level.

If telling someone that they get to don stripes again gets them to metaphorically raise their hand and swear in, so be it. Now, what are we doing to keep them motivated to stay? And what complexities are we adding to an already complex training environment by duplicating terminology with the exact same outcome?

I would love it if my squadron had three officers and six NCOs to manage our cadet training program, plus whatever the heck the rest of the senior members in the squadron do that I don't talk to regularly. It would make way more sense to me based on where the strategic planning is conducted between those of us that do officer-level work and those who do NCO-level work from what I'm accustomed to. It makes sense to me, and it's an environment that I could adapt to.

We're backward in the sense of having a corps of 95% officers and only a handful of NCOs (arbitrary statistics). It should be the reverse, even considering that most CAP officers don't do planning and they don't actually command people, or even manage a staff for that matter. It makes no sense to me to have an O-3 sitting at the comms desk all evening playing on the radio and installing an antenna, and the E-7 is out conducting O-Flights at the same time as PIC. But, that's one of those CAP-isms. This is what it looks like when grades and titles mean absolutely nothing other than serving to identify how far in the senior education program you've advanced.

Essentially, in this organization, at least at the squadron level, there is so much flexibility to run the squadron in the way the commander sees fit; it doesn't really matter what the "NCO role" is designed to do, or where those differences between officers and NCOs exist either on paper, in guidance, or on any wish list. Commanders will employ staffs to fill the needs of the squadron by the people who volunteer to take on those tasks. Units often have only a few senior members show up on a given meeting night, so there's no room to even put people into "grade-appropriate" roles. It's all moot in the end.

We continue to talk about how to best use NCOs when many units struggle to even get support from their existing membership. So if a member wants to be called "Sergeant," and is willing to help out wherever, that's better than picking a fight. And if we were to only institute officer ranks, and that same person says "I'm leaving if I can't wear stripes," well then, bye.

Let's focus on the important stuff : the duties and responsibilities that need to be carried out.

What's it going to take to motivate someone to do that?

[Eclipse]

Let's focus on the important stuff : the duties and responsibilities that need to be carried out.

What's it going to take to motivate someone to do that?

Eliminate.

Grade.

Completely.

Done.

[THRAWN]

What ever it takes to get people to meetings.

If someone is a prior E-4, and they really want to be an NCO, and they're super gung-ho about it; well, I'm also skeptical. This person did not have much experience as a military NCO to begin with, and they may seem a bit eager to jump right in (and I need to instill some patience in them as they grasp the new environment and take it all in).

 

Marine corporals and PO3s, especially Coasties, disagree with this statement.

It's still pretty easy to find PO3s with minimal leadership training/skills. Go to an advanced tech school, sign up for two more years, and you have an instant PO3. We called them "rent-a-crows". It is possible for someone to spend over a year in a training environment, be an NCO, and never do real NCO stuff, particularly supervision.

Agree, but just as easy to find one who has done real NCO stuff.

[THRAWN]

Let's focus on the important stuff : the duties and responsibilities that need to be carried out.

What's it going to take to motivate someone to do that?

Eliminate.

Grade.

Completely.

Ayup.

Done.

[PHall]

Agree, but just as easy to find one who has done real NCO stuff.

So what is "real" NCO stuff? The duties of NCO's vary greatly between the various branches and even within a branch.
For example an SSGT E-6 in Army or Marine Infantry has a totally different job and skill set from an Air Force TSGT E-6 or a Navy PO1 who are working in aircraft maintenance.
Heck an Air Force TSGT E-6 who is an Aircraft Loadmaster has a totally different skill set then an TSGT E-6 who is a Shift Supervisor in a Security Forces Squadron. The Loadmaster might supervise one or two people while the Cop may be supervising 15 or 20.
So all military NCO's are not the same. So what it comes to is that former military NCO's are just any other member of CAP. They all bring their own unique set of skills and abilities.

[THRAWN]

Agree, but just as easy to find one who has done real NCO stuff.

So what is "real" NCO stuff? The duties of NCO's vary greatly between the various branches and even within a branch.
For example an SSGT E-6 in Army or Marine Infantry has a totally different job and skill set from an Air Force TSGT E-6 or a Navy PO1 who are working in aircraft maintenance.
Heck an Air Force TSGT E-6 who is an Aircraft Loadmaster has a totally different skill set then an TSGT E-6 who is a Shift Supervisor in a Security Forces Squadron. The Loadmaster might supervise one or two people while the Cop may be supervising 15 or 20.
So all military NCO's are not the same. So what it comes to is that former military NCO's are just any other member of CAP. They all bring their own unique set of skills and abilities.

You might want to redirect that to the person that made the "real NCO stuff" comment. It wasn't me. I agree that there are wide variances between the roles of NCOs across the services and within the services. Blanket statements about the great value NCOs will bring to CAP doesn't reflect that.

[Eclipse]

The NCO "stuff" that NCOs "do", isn't relevent to CAP.

    There is no enlisted corps to care and feed.

    There are no specialist jobs to fill.

    All CAP staff roles are program-management-type situations and are generally a team of one.

ES / GT is not an NCO role, per se, despite people trying to shoe-horn it in, and especially these
days, the vast majority of ES roles are program-management or aircrew (unless driving a van with a picnic cooler in it is something NCOs are hyper-qualified to do).

Due to the nature of a volunteer organizaiton, there is no job in CAP in which you can
dictate requirements for appointment.  Everything is "should" at best, and by far the
majority are filled based on "precense" and "you're lucky I showed up at all".

The idea that RDCs, DIs, or TIs make good CP leaders, per se, is about 180° off.
Their skills and training are focused on molding young adult warfighters who are obligated
to obedience, not adolescents in a volunteer career-exploration program who can leave
the minute someone looks at them cross-eyed. 

BTDT in-person for 20 years in a basic training environment and with CAP members who
come from that background.  It's one thing to have some fun during an encampment under
full supervision, and a totally different ball game to propagate the rhetoric that a
25 yro E-4 without kids of his own and who has never worked with adolescents is somehow
extra-qualified to guide cadets in a program they have never experienced themselves.

If they have kids, or are involved in Scouting or similar programs, then
they'd have the same experience and skills as any other person off the street.

Yes, there are a few things that would be short-cutted. They can (presumably)configure a uniform
and teach drill properly.  That's a VERY small part of the CP (if you're doing it right).

Consider this...

The rhetoric is that NCOs would be the savior of CAP from a leadership and retention perspective.
This has literally been said on numerous occasions...

...yet they are barred from holding THE most important job in CAP - Squadron Commander.

What else needs to be said on this?

[Holding Pattern]

Let's focus on the important stuff : the duties and responsibilities that need to be carried out.

What's it going to take to motivate someone to do that?

Eliminate.

Grade.

Completely.

Done.

Join

Another

Org

For

That.

Grade is never going away until the Cadet Program does too.

[Holding Pattern]

Consider this...

The rhetoric is that NCOs would be the savior of CAP from a leadership and retention perspective.
This has literally been said on numerous occasions...

...yet they are barred from holding THE most important job in CAP - Squadron Commander.

What else needs to be said on this?

That the job of commander has been made so unappealing that being able to point at your stripes as the reason you can't hold it is shown to be a positive selling point?

[Eclipse]

Grade is never going away until the Cadet Program does too.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade themselves in order to administer and
facilitate the Cadet Program.  If anything, adult staff and leaders not
holding any grade makes the CP progression, mission and goals more clear.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade in order to wear military-style uniforms,
and without it would make CAP's place in the grande scheme of "Total Force" more
clear, and greatly reduce the instances of members insinuating they are something they are not.

Eliminating grade for adult staff and leaders would reduce the cost of uniforms, as well as
confusion as to roles and authority, all for zero cost either monetarily or to mission readiness,
in fact it actually enhances mission readiness because of the reduced distractions.

[Holding Pattern]

Grade is never going away until the Cadet Program does too.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade themselves in order to administer and
facilitate the Cadet Program.  If anything, adult staff and leaders not
holding any grade makes the CP progression, mission and goals more clear.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade in order to wear military-style uniforms,
and without it would make CAP's place in the grande scheme of "Total Force" more
clear, and greatly reduce the instances of members insinuating they are something they are not.

Eliminating grade for adult staff and leaders would reduce the cost of uniforms, as well as
confusion as to roles and authority, all for zero cost either monetarily or to mission readiness,
in fact it actually enhances mission readiness because of the reduced distractions.

And eliminating grade would get rid of a lot of the membership too, no doubt. Throwing away all that PD progression is a GREAT strategy.

Grade is never going away until the Cadet Program does too.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade themselves in order to administer and
facilitate the Cadet Program.  If anything, adult staff and leaders not
holding any grade makes the CP progression, mission and goals more clear.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade in order to wear military-style uniforms,
and without it would make CAP's place in the grande scheme of "Total Force" more
clear, and greatly reduce the instances of members insinuating they are something they are not.

Eliminating grade for adult staff and leaders would reduce the cost of uniforms, as well as
confusion as to roles and authority, all for zero cost either monetarily or to mission readiness,
in fact it actually enhances mission readiness because of the reduced distractions.

Feel free to join the grade-free non-profits that are out there.

[Eclipse]

And eliminating grade would get rid of a lot of the membership too, no doubt. Throwing away all that PD progression is a GREAT strategy.

I don't see anythng about PD ET in my statement.

[Holding Pattern]

And eliminating grade would get rid of a lot of the membership too, no doubt. Throwing away all that PD progression is a GREAT strategy.

I don't see anythng about PD ET in my statement.

The PD/ET is closely tied to the grade, and usually the carrot used to get people to advance their PD/ET.

[Eclipse]

The PD/ET is closely tied to the grade, and usually the carrot used to get people to advance their PD/ET.

Thank you, good to see we agree.

[JohhnyD]

The PD/ET is closely tied to the grade, and usually the carrot used to get people to advance their PD/ET.

Thank you, good to see we agree.

Irony is not your strong suit. Amazing and enthusiastic motivation is more your style.

[SarDragon]

That moment when the Navy already has this system set up...

Unrestricted Line Officers: Eligible to hold command; perform a variety of advanced mission roles

Restricted Line Officer: Not eligible to hold command; perform a variety of advanced skill roles and oversight

Limited Duty Officers: Specialized skill officers without a Bachelor's degree receiving a commission through a shortened training program (often prior-NCOs)

I'm not sure where you wanted to go with, so I will just provide some additional detail for those folks not as familiar with the Canoe Club.

URL, RL, and LDO are different because of both source and job assignment.

URLs come almost exclusively from college, and have varying lengths of Navy specific education - USNA and ROTC for four years, and OCS for a few months. They enter service as ensigns and are assigned to various occupational areas - Surface Warfare Officer (SWO), Submarine Warfare Officer, Special Warfare Officer (SEAL), Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Officer, Naval Aviator, Naval Flight Officer, or Naval Aviator-Astronaut. All except the SWOs get additional schooling prior to their first duty assignment. They progress up the leadership chain and could eventually command a deep draft ship at the Captain level. They relocate every two-three years, and are assignable world-wide.

The non-SWOs are assigned to more specialized units - aviation squadrons, SpecOps units, submarines, etc. Promotion progression and relocation are similar.

RLOs are restricted in the performance of duty by having been designated for aviation duty, engineering duty, aerospace engineering duty, or special duty. RL officers are authorized to command ashore within their particular specialty, but are not eligible for combatant command at sea, which remains strictly within the purview of URL officers. Promotion progression and relocation are similar to URL officers.

Staff Corps officers (you left this one out) almost always have advanced degrees on entry into the Navy, and serve in specialized fields - Medical Corps Officer; includes Naval Flight Surgeon, Naval Surface Medical Officer and Naval Submarine Medical Officer, Dental Corps Officer, Medical Service Corps Officer; includes Naval Aviation Physiologist and Naval Aviation Experimental Psychologist, Judge Advocate General's Corps Officer, Senior Health Care Executive Officer, Nurse Corps Officer; includes Navy Flight Nurse, Supply Corps Officer, Chaplain Corps Officer, and Civil Engineer Corps (i.e., Seabee) Officer. They may or not have command potential, and then only in their specialized areas. Relocation is variable;  doctors may stay in one location for 8-10 years, depending on specialty. The promotion path between ranks is longer.

LDOs perform of duty in the broad occupational fields indicated by their former warrant designators or enlisted rating groups. They typically only get to the division officer level, or sometimes convert to RL and progress in that manner.

More here.

All that said, I do not see any need for a similar CAP structure.

[Mitchell 1969]

Grade is never going away until the Cadet Program does too.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade themselves in order to administer and
facilitate the Cadet Program.  If anything, adult staff and leaders not
holding any grade makes the CP progression, mission and goals more clear.

Adult leaders do not need to have grade in order to wear military-style uniforms,
and without it would make CAP's place in the grande scheme of "Total Force" more
clear, and greatly reduce the instances of members insinuating they are something they are not.

Eliminating grade for adult staff and leaders would reduce the cost of uniforms, as well as
confusion as to roles and authority, all for zero cost either monetarily or to mission readiness,
in fact it actually enhances mission readiness because of the reduced distractions.

Can you name ONE military-based cadet program, anywhere in the world, where NONE of the leaders wear uniforms, have ranks and are addressed as such by their cadets?

I'm not talking about "Cadet Instructors List" people in blazers who, well, instruct. I'm talking about commanders of local squadrons/corps/battalions/regiments or whatever local units are called.

One? I'm predicting no. And there are ample good reasons for that, otherwise that field would have been plowed long ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shuman 14]

And this is why I keep pushing the Warrant/Flight Officer grade Insignia  tied to Education/PD:

Senior Member without Grade = No Education / No Insignia

Flight Officer = Level 1 / WO-1 Insignia

Technical Flight Officer = Level 2 / CWO-2 Insignia

Senior Flight Officer  = Level 3 / CWO-3 Insignia

Chief Flight Officer = Level 4 / CWO-4 Insignia

Master Flight Officer = Level 5 / CWO-5 Insignia

The USAF no longer uses Warrant Officer grades, this will help eliminate "confusion as to roles and authority" of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel.

Flight Officers out rank the Cadets, they still will have to use proper Customs and Courtesies when dealing with Senior Members.

Warrant Officers are normally specialist, our Flight Officers will be specialist in CAP Operations. This eliminates the confusion of the lack of formal education (ie Bachelor degrees) needed for Regular/Reserve Commissioned  Officers of the Armed Forces for many of our Members.

As to the topic itself, I see no need for an NCO Corps in CAP, there is no real mission difference between what a CAP NCO or Officer (or a SMWOG for that matter) does when it comes to real world missions.

[Eclipse]

Can you name ONE military-based cadet program, anywhere in the world, where NONE of the leaders wear uniforms, have ranks and are addressed as such by their cadets?

Can you name ONE military based-cadet program that operates in the manner that CAP does, has an operational
component which includes an adult program, and has Lt Cols reporting to 2nd Lts and an NCO corps without
enlisted personnel?  Perfect "model" for cadets to understand how things work.

Heck, for that matter, name ONE military-based cadet program that has 1/2 or more of the adult leadership
in a different uniform altogether despite there being no difference in their status.

I believe "Sir, Ma'am, Mr., & Ms." are still function and appropriate addresses that would work in lieu of grade when addressing adults.

Also, you might want to re-read, I am not advocating getting rid of the military uniforms, my only comment to that
effect was that you can still wear them without any grade, which would actually eliminate a lot of issues
people purport members have.

[TheSkyHornet]

The USAF no longer uses Warrant Officer grades, this will help eliminate "confusion as to roles and authority" of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel.

What's this myth about confusion existing as to the roles and authorities of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel?

I don't think I've ever come across that despite the fact that I keep hearing about it.

If you want to tie grade to PD/ET level, by all means. Standardize it across the board. Don't over complicate it by having plurality. Just have officer roles and leave it at that. We don't need to reinvent everything. Maybe we need to get rid of stuff.

Or, what we could do, is overhaul an existing program to reestablish an appropriate use of terminology and designated roles which already exist (i.e., Squadron NCO).

I'll ask this:
Does a Squadron NCO need to exist?

I'll answer it myself:
No, because most squadrons don't even have an NCO on the roster. And many squadrons that have an NCO don't put their NCO into that role or even use them as an NCO for that matter.

I'll as this as well:
Does being the Aerospace Officer have any difference in being the Aerospace NCO?

I'll answer:
No, it doesn't. There's literally no difference between those two individuals.

An NCO can be the Deputy Commander for Cadets. They can be the Safety Officer. They can be the Emergency Services Officer. They can be a Mission Pilot. They can be a Ground Team Leader. There's literally no difference between a CAP O-4 and a CAP E-7 exercising those very roles/duties.

So we can either:
1.  Take the NCO Corps and modify it to treat it like an NCO Corps (if that need exists);

2.  Take the NCO Corps and get rid of it altogether;

3.  Continue to use the NCO Corps as-is for recruiting purposes (no change);


The way I see it, the issue isn't officer grades, or warrant officers, or any of that. The matter at hand is whether or not NCOs have a distinctive purpose and benefit the organization in their capacity as NCOs.

It is my opinion that we do not employ NCOs in most circumstances. We employ members who have NCO insignia and title and treat them as any relative officer.

Let's either use them as NCOs, get rid of the NCO grades, or drop the subject and just carry on. The never ending debate topic needs to go away more than anything else.

I'm not sure where you wanted to go with, so I will just provide some additional detail for those folks not as familiar with the Canoe Club.

(Content removed)

All that said, I do not see any need for a similar CAP structure.

It was an anecdotal point that different structures exist for different organizational/hierarchical needs.

We copy an Air Force structure because of the heir apparent status of CAP as an Air Force underbelly. I think our organization has spent so much time trying to mimic the Air Force without some individuals paying attention to our design criteria and requirements to support our missions and operational necessities.

There is literally only one place in CAP where mimicking the Air Force structure makes sense in its near entirety, and that is in the Cadet Program. We use the training flight model, much like any other JROTC or collegiate ROTC would: flights, platoons, floatilla, whatever you want to call it. It makes sense there, if employed correctly and with the roster numbers (and participation rates) to make it work.

As far as the remainder of the CAP hierarchy goes, it's all janky, from top to bottom.

We have a Wing confined to a state (in most cases) that has, say, 30 squadrons. But that Wing really isn't internally supportive of a common mission. Every squadron kind of does its own thing. Those squadrons may vary in size, not complementary to the mission needs of that unit, but in the reverse; the squadron's size really dictates what it's capable of rather than being capably built around it's assigned mission. That's a given in a volunteer organization where we can't really just add more manpower to support the mission. Additionally, our squadrons don't really specialize in an area. There isn't a logistics squadron, or a search and rescue squadron, or a medical squadron, and so forth. Some squadrons only do one thing, maybe train cadets or fly, and some squadrons do a great deal more. Again, that comes with the volunteer structure.

Okay, so we take the Air Force design, and we employ that. It's easy to understand why we settled on that, but at best we're just mimicking the terminology; not really the design elements in support of the mission.

Then we mimic the rank structure of the Air Force, and we use the same terms. But we change it up and add our own elements. Your grade is really encompassed around what you've trained on, not so much what you're able to do in the organization. You can command as a 2d Lt. You can command as a Lt Col. Then we add in some other ranks, such as NCOs. And we don't really make that any different aside from saying "To be this grade, you have to be prior military, and if you hold that grade, you can't be a commander or a Chaplain or really any traditional officer role...except you can really be in any other officer role."

At that point, my eyes go crossed, and I don't even know why it's a thing. "Well, because NCOs add value." Now I thought some of the people's comments previous to mine said that's not necessarily the case. You can be an NCO, but you still have to do all of the other officer-type stuff in CAP. Um, okay. Losing me again. What's the purpose? What's the difference here?

Then, there are some other comments about why don't we switch to new grades, or get rid of grades, or all of these things.

Hang on, everyone.

Let's go back and look at what we need to accomplish in order to fulfill our mission. What does it take to train and education the manpower to do that? What does it take to encourage and motivate those individuals to undergo that training, to show up, and to stay active in their advancement?

Let's do that.

[TheSkyHornet]

Can you name ONE military based-cadet program that operates in the manner that CAP does, has an operational
component which includes an adult program, and has Lt Cols reporting to 2nd Lts and an NCO corps without
enlisted personnel?  Perfect "model" for cadets to understand how things work.

This is kind of my frustration in that realm.

We don't model the program for the cadets, so we have to instill it based on stories, textbooks, and hopefully some first-hand experience.

What I think happens, more often than not, as I've griped about previous, is that you get a situation where there is a squadron of, say, 20 cadets. Three of those cadets have parents in the squadron as senior members, maybe O-1 through O-3. The O-3 is the squadron commander; he's prior military enlisted. In addition, the two other officers are non-military. One of them is the Deputy Commander for Cadets and Aerospace Officer, the other is the Testing Officer and Supply Officer. The Commander covers Character Development and Personnel/Admin. A new cadet member joins along with mom. Mom volunteers to help with Testing and help do cadet training "things." Dad joins as a Cadet Sponsor Member, but doesn't really want to get too involved. He sits on the sidelines during the meetings playing on his phone, and he chaperones the activities. He's quirky and likes to boast about how great the program is, but he really doesn't understand any of it. He just helps when he can.

In this example, you have a relatively inexperienced corps of senior cadre who don't really know much from a military perspective thrust into a paramilitary training culture, like that of a JROTC. Without that experience, they don't really get the gist of what the difference is between a Flight Sergeant or First Sergeant. They think the Cadet Second Lieutenant has worked really hard, and they appoint him to be the Cadet Commander despite the fact that when asked what the difference is between officers and NCOs during a review board, he says "Well, officers make the decisions and NCOs follow the orders." Okay, it suffices.

I'm coming to the point where I'm caring so little about anyone's grade and the fact that I run across numerous "officers" who couldn't tell you the difference between an officer and an NCO in the military, let alone in CAP, let alone in the Cadet Program.

We worry about so much stuff like insignia that we're not spending that energy on training improvements at the local level, and with a lack of mentoring from Wings in assisting those local units in fulfilling their duties.


CAVEAT:
I speak solely out of frustration for Cadet Programs, since that's essentially all I've done since being in CAP. Don't take this as any correlation to the other facets of the organization.

[Eclipse]

What's this myth about confusion existing as to the roles and authorities of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel?

I don't think I've ever come across that despite the fact that I keep hearing about it.

I raised it in the context of the comments we hear that without grade...

"No one will know who is in charge"

"When we work with outside agencies they won't respect us / know who is in charge."

"We have to model the grades for the cadets."

Etc., etc.

And then of course the wives tails of how we are treated on bases, misguided members
telling airman not to salute them, the rare (but real) issue of actual stolen valor (coupled with the less rare accusations of wannabeism) or some numbnutz dressing down someone for not rendering courtesies.

All fallacies if for no other reason CAP's grade implementation model is wholly broken.

[Eclipse]

In this example, you have a relatively inexperienced corps of senior cadre who don't really know much from a military perspective thrust into a paramilitary training culture, like that of a JROTC. Without that experience, they don't really get the gist of what the difference is between a Flight Sergeant or First Sergeant. They think the Cadet Second Lieutenant has worked really hard, and they appoint him to be the Cadet Commander despite the fact that when asked what the difference is between officers and NCOs during a review board, he says "Well, officers make the decisions and NCOs follow the orders." Okay, it suffices.

And this is the top reason no one should be put into any position of authority, leadership, or training, until they, themselves, have been trained and vetted - very difficult in today's CAP.

I'm coming to the point where I'm caring so little about anyone's grade and the fact that I run across numerous "officers" who couldn't tell you the difference between an officer and an NCO in the military, let alone in CAP, let alone in the Cadet Program.

Ditto, years ago.  It would be dishonest to say that as a new member I wasn't attracted to the pomp and circumstance,
and I still participate and enjoy it, but it also didn't take very long for me to figure out how CAP's broken grade implementation is a detriment from every angle, recruiting, retention, unit ops, the works, made worse by people in the chain who dole out promotions with eye dropper as if they actually had to deal with budgets and billets.

If cadets were treated in the way many adults are in regards to promotion approvals, CAP could bank on shutting it's doors in a year.

We worry about so much stuff like insignia that we're not spending that energy on training improvements at the local level, and with a lack of mentoring from Wings in assisting those local units in fulfilling their duties.

This is probably the place CAP has always showed consistency - the inexplicable inability to identify and emphasize the things that are actually important to members and the mission, ultimately to the detriment of all sides of the conversation.

"Grade isn't important, except that it is, unless it isn't, and also it doesn't matter, except to some members it's critical to recruiting and retention, but no one should join for the grade, although ultimately it's not...so did you want to join?"

[Mitchell 1969]

Can you name ONE military-based cadet program, anywhere in the world, where NONE of the leaders wear uniforms, have ranks and are addressed as such by their cadets?

Can you name ONE military based-cadet program that operates in the manner that CAP does, has an operational
component which includes an adult program, and has Lt Cols reporting to 2nd Lts and an NCO corps without
enlisted personnel?  Perfect "model" for cadets to understand how things work.

Heck, for that matter, name ONE military-based cadet program that has 1/2 or more of the adult leadership
in a different uniform altogether despite there being no difference in their status.

I believe "Sir, Ma'am, Mr., & Ms." are still function and appropriate addresses that would work in lieu of grade when addressing adults.

Also, you might want to re-read, I am not advocating getting rid of the military uniforms, my only comment to that
effect was that you can still wear them without any grade, which would actually eliminate a lot of issues
people purport members have.

Can you name ONE military-based cadet program, anywhere in the world, where NONE of the leaders wear uniforms, have ranks and are addressed as such by their cadets?

Can you name ONE military based-cadet program that operates in the manner that CAP does, has an operational
component which includes an adult program, and has Lt Cols reporting to 2nd Lts and an NCO corps without
enlisted personnel?  Perfect "model" for cadets to understand how things work.

Heck, for that matter, name ONE military-based cadet program that has 1/2 or more of the adult leadership
in a different uniform altogether despite there being no difference in their status.

I believe "Sir, Ma'am, Mr., & Ms." are still function and appropriate addresses that would work in lieu of grade when addressing adults.

Also, you might want to re-read, I am not advocating getting rid of the military uniforms, my only comment to that
effect was that you can still wear them without any grade, which would actually eliminate a lot of issues
people purport members have.

1). You didn't answer my question.

2). You moved my goalposts to suit your strawman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SarDragon]

Let's keep it clean, folks. Bacon needs to catch up a little more before we shut this off.

[JohhnyD]

If cadets were treated in the way many adults are in regards to promotion approvals, CAP could bank on shutting it's doors in a year.

You stumbled on to a great truth. Ponder that statement carefully, as it truly defines a major issue.

[Spam]

Let's keep it clean, folks. Bacon needs to catch up a little more before we shut this off.

Modified my vote: I so concur on the Bacon.

V/r
Spam

[Private Investigator]

Let's keep it clean, folks. Bacon needs to catch up a little more before we shut this off.

Another vote (or two or three ...) for bacon.

[UWONGO2]

What's this myth about confusion existing as to the roles and authorities of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel?

I can only speak to my personal experiences, but I've encountered confusion from military personnel (enlisted and officers) more than once. The language used varies, but essentially a group will send one sacrificial lamb over and politely ask if they may ask a question (a bit redundant - but whatever). The question is typically some variation of "what branch are you?" followed by "do we have to salute you?". It's the answer to the latter question that sends them off like giddy elementary school kids skipping back to their group to share their new intel.

There was certainly no harm done by any of the confusion in the handful of times it's happened to me, but but it does happen.

[JohhnyD]

What, exactly, is the 'special' part only NCOs wearing NCO stripes can play? That is the overriding question that has NEVER been answered.

As we start onboarding the new NCOs (our SM cohort recruiting this quarter has aimed at them with great success) we are already seeing amazing results.

1 - Two of them are active duty Air NG and Honor Guard members. They are already starting to transform our cadet color guard and the drill and ceremonies part of the cadet program will undoubtedly be enhanced as well. Only prior or current service NCOs can be as effective.

2 - Three of the other current service NCOs have already used their military connections to enhance supply, our ABU and field gear stock is now adequate for the first time ever. Again, civilians have a hard time building those connections, these NCOs live them.

There. Two CONCRETE areas (and there are many more) where NCOs are unique.

[Eclipse]

There. Two CONCRETE areas (and there are many more) where NCOs these people are unique.

FTFY.

These are areas where you've had happenstance success finding people with
connections who randomly have skills relevent to your unit. Hardly the justification
for a CAP NCO program.  The fact that you don't understand that indicates you're
not clear on the issue in this discussion.

No one has ever said people who were or are former military don't have unique
connections and skills to bring to CAP, or that they are not needed, but that is no different
then the thousands of LEOs, FDs, CPAs, pilots, PTA Moms, project managers, and landscapers
who join every year and do the same, nor is it justification or reason to create an entire new
program around an idea that has no analog within the organizaiton.

You know, like all the generals who join that can't wear their stars?

So only NCO's know how to drill?  Interesting.
So if they'd wandered into a Senior Flight or a unit with no interest in color guard
they would have been shown the door?

And your supply guys, they are going to do what NCO-specific duties, exactly, once those uniforms are counted and both of the radios are inventoried? In this case, you're actually saying that their value stems
from bringing equipment to your unit.  Sounds like a Nebraska Admiral.

[JohhnyD]

Yes, they can play the same very real part as EVERY OTHER MEMBER who responds plays. There no special NCO part for them to play.

Well, except it appears that there is. And you appear to not like it. Odd.

What, exactly, is the 'special' part only NCOs wearing NCO stripes can play? That is the overriding question that has NEVER been answered.

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol. He will provide a timeline of his journey with the NCO Corps and share examples of the wonderful accomplishments our NCOs have made throughout "CAPville, USA" . CAP NCOs retain their traditional roles of technician, mentor and advisor mirroring t...

[Fubar]

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol.

"When I joined in 2003 and I got this card in the mail that said 2nd Lt, I was insulted!"

            - Chief Master Sergeant Robert Dandridge, 2020 National Conference Presentation

[Eclipse]

CAP NCOs retain their traditional roles of technician, mentor and advisor mirroring t...

As opposed to...

This discussion is put to rest with a single articulated CAP-relevent duty that can only
be performed by an NCO.

20 years.

Nothing.

[Eclipse]

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol.

"When I joined in 2003 and I got this card in the mail that said 2nd Lt, I was insulted!"

            - Chief Master Sergeant Robert Dandridge, 2020 National Conference Presentation

I know the Chief and have worked directly with him.  Good man, excellent leader, outstanding example,
CAP needs lots more like him. His USAF pedigree is not only rock-solid, but frankly pretty remarkable.

He's definitely marching in the same line as Chief Wright and others at that level.  Certainly if any
would be able to come up strong, supportable, CAP-contextual duties fro NCOs it would be him.

And yet...

I've never seen him do anything as an "NCO", that the rest of the people in the room, officers, SMWOGs,
and Sponsors were not also doing.

[JohhnyD]

This discussion is put to rest with a single articulated CAP-relevent duty that can only
be performed by an NCO.

My unit CC has been on a tear, recruited a dozen NCOs this last month. Already have seen the following that it is unlikely a non-NCO could have done:

1 - Leveraged their NCO network to get us massive donations of ABUs and ABU field gear from mutiple local and statewide military commands.

2 - Brought in two NCO Honor Guard members who are already revolutionizing our Color Guard and stand ready to build out our drill and ceremonies and military customs and courtesies to a fine edge.

3 - Jumped in, tackled, and are taking on long-needed admin tasks, up to speed in days and weeks.

Amazing can-do spirit and a no BS approach.

You can carp all you want, but what I've seen in the last few days has me convinced that one NCO is worth a dozen "all talk" run of the mill naysayers.

BTW Having a positive, "hell on wheels" CC is a blessing.

[Eclipse]

You can carp all you want, but what I've seen in the last few days has me convinced that one NCO person with connections who is interested in working is worth a dozen "all talk" run of the mill naysayers.

FTFY, and seriously, who would argue that?

You're confirming the point that recruiting people with connections is good for CAP,
yet you haven't yet indicated a single thing their super-powered stripes bring to the
table that anyone else with the same connections would bring.

Someone from the CBP color Guard and the owner of a surplus store could have provided
the same resources via the same happenstance recruiting.

So...we've now established, new members with connections are better then your current members who apparently
didn't' do anything.

So stipulated.

[JohhnyD]

yet you haven't yet indicated a single thing their super-powered stripes bring to the
table that anyone else with the same connections would bring.

Only NCOs have NCO connections. Only NCOs have the precision Honor Guard and military experience. You want NCO connection, you get NCOs. You want NCO focus, you get NCOs. Or not. You go ahead and pretend it does not matter, my CC just proved you to be another dark-net naysayer. Enjoy.

Q.E.D.

(That's Latin for sorry, you are wrong.)

[Stonewall]

yet you haven't yet indicated a single thing their super-powered stripes bring to the
table that anyone else with the same connections would bring.

Only NCOs have NCO connections. Only NCOs have the precision Honor Guard and military experience. You want NCO connection, you get NCOs. You want NCO focus, you get NCOs. Or not. You go ahead and pretend it does not matter, my CC just proved you to be another dark-net naysayer. Enjoy.

Q.E.D.

(That's Latin for sorry, you are wrong.)

So my connections as an Air Force CMSgt don't count because I'm an officer In CAP? Weird.

Or the fact that we have several Air Force officers in our CAP squadron, to include the CC and CDC? I guess their connections are moot because they're CAP officers.

Really, this is lame. Anyone of those members, regardless of rank,  would bring the same to the table. Even if they were just a parent of a cadet who wanted to help out.

[JohhnyD]

yet you haven't yet indicated a single thing their super-powered stripes bring to the
table that anyone else with the same connections would bring.

Only NCOs have NCO connections. Only NCOs have the precision Honor Guard and military experience. You want NCO connection, you get NCOs. You want NCO focus, you get NCOs. Or not. You go ahead and pretend it does not matter, my CC just proved you to be another dark-net naysayer. Enjoy.

Q.E.D.

(That's Latin for sorry, you are wrong.)

So my connections as an Air Force CMSgt don't count because I'm an officer In CAP? Weird.

Or the fact that we have several Air Force officers in our CAP squadron, to include the CC and CDC? I guess their connections are moot because they're CAP officers.

Really, this is lame. Anyone of those members, regardless of rank,  would bring the same to the table. Even if they were just a parent of a cadet who wanted to help out.

Of course they count. The difference is the NCOs identify as such and act as such. If you choose the traditional path - good on you, but until the NCO corp is fleshed out it appears command intent remains that they are unique in CAP as being 100% veteran or active duty and we see the value in that. Your service, both in the military and CAP are not the question and are very much appreciated and respected. What is the question is the value of the NCO program and in less than a month my CC has proven that value to our team. Your mileage may vary.

[JohhnyD]

One other point, many of them have said they choose NOT to wear officers rank, they feel as Chief Dandridge does. Just sayin.

[JohhnyD]

One other point, how many of the officers in your unit have had recent Honor Guard experience?

[Mitchell 1969]

What's this myth about confusion existing as to the roles and authorities of CAP members in relation to USAF personnel?

I can only speak to my personal experiences, but I've encountered confusion from military personnel (enlisted and officers) more than once. The language used varies, but essentially a group will send one sacrificial lamb over and politely ask if they may ask a question (a bit redundant - but whatever). The question is typically some variation of "what branch are you?" followed by "do we have to salute you?". It's the answer to the latter question that sends them off like giddy elementary school kids skipping back to their group to share their new intel.

There was certainly no harm done by any of the confusion in the handful of times it's happened to me, but but it does happen.

Over the last 48 years of wearing Officer insignia (cadet and senior), on somewhere around 20+ Air Force bases, not once have I been asked "do we have to salute you?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mitchell 1969]

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol.

"When I joined in 2003 and I got this card in the mail that said 2nd Lt, I was insulted!"

            - Chief Master Sergeant Robert Dandridge, 2020 National Conference Presentation

I hope he meant well. Or at least meant...something. Besides insulting those of us who don't have much choice in the matter. For us, it's either Officer or nothing, no third option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohhnyD]

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol.

"When I joined in 2003 and I got this card in the mail that said 2nd Lt, I was insulted!"

            - Chief Master Sergeant Robert Dandridge, 2020 National Conference Presentation

I hope he meant well. Or at least meant...something. Besides insulting those of us who don't have much choice in the matter. For us, it's either Officer or nothing, no third option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Core values would suggest assuming he meant well and also meant no insult. YMMV.

[Spam]

Join the National Command Chief as he speaks about the value of the NCO Corps to the Civil Air Patrol.

"When I joined in 2003 and I got this card in the mail that said 2nd Lt, I was insulted!"

            - Chief Master Sergeant Robert Dandridge, 2020 National Conference Presentation

I hope he meant well. Or at least meant...something. Besides insulting those of us who don't have much choice in the matter. For us, it's either Officer or nothing, no third option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Core values would suggest assuming he meant well and also meant no insult. YMMV.

Core values would suggest that he should not have made the comment in the first place.

"I work for a living", "***** college boys" and similar insults to commissioned professionals have no place and neither do elitist comments denigrating professional enlisted men and women.

In a CAP context, in that as CAP members we are all civilians in a civilian nonprofit, all such comments are yet another aspect of the massive, self important costume play (with multiple costumes) by which SOME prior service (officer/enlisted) play at still being relevant in their former military roles and SOME non prior service play act as if they were in the real military in which they never served a day. When those cosplay acts morph into reenacting the Hollywood stereotypes of years past, it is neither helpful to our cadet charges nor to our CAP missions to allow the divisive jokes and insults free play.

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

As Mister Dandrige apparently did, in a very public role.

R/s
Mister (not LTC, CAP, today) Spam

[JohhnyD]

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

Nope, we earn our grade. Sorry, in my opinion your disrespect of that is sad.

[Spam]

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

Nope, we earn our grade. Sorry, in my opinion your disrespect of that is sad.

Respectfully submit that a CAP "Lieutenant" does not hold a commission from the Congress of the United States and does not serve at the pleasure of the CinC to command US forces. He is therefore a "Lieutenant" for the purposes of a volunteer civilian organization, no more and no less an "officer" than someone who earned merit badges and certificates in a recreational quilting league.

Earned? Sure, in context. I respect the accomplishment of the training but at the end of the day yes, we are all playing dress up, and need to (as Shatner said on his famous Star Trek skit on SNL):  "get a life". If we've lived a past life as a cadet, or active duty, thats great and honorable, but CAP grade is honorary and pretend, reflective grade rather than actual grade.

I stand by the statements.

V/r
Spam

[Holding Pattern]

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

As Mister Dandrige apparently did, in a very public role.

R/s
Mister (not LTC, CAP, today) Spam

Perhaps I'm missing the respect component of calling everyone's advancement of grade "fake."

Can you clarify how this statement is respectful of the work that tens of thousands of members put in to achieve their respective grades?

[Spam]

Arguing about CAP "NCO" and "Officer" roles, and all the attendant uniforms and so forth, is like having a fight an SF Con over the tactics of the Klingons and Cardassians.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmagzq

What we all did in a past life - is past. Holy cow people, lets get a life.

V/r
Spam 
"No! Don't nonrenew me! I was just pretending to be Evil Spam from Mirror Mirror"

[Spam]

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

As Mister Dandrige apparently did, in a very public role.

R/s
Mister (not LTC, CAP, today) Spam

Perhaps I'm missing the respect component of calling everyone's advancement of grade "fake."

Can you clarify how this statement is respectful of the work that tens of thousands of members put in to achieve their respective grades?

OK, Pattern, is "pretend" better? "Pretend Major", "Play Chief"?

Earned military grades deserve respect and thanks - I think we all agree on that. The CAP effort to complete PME and requirements to earn CAP Levels, likewise. But really... our grades are honorary and a CAP grade is not the same as a military one, however one earned it. That's my point.

Hitting a tender spot here, just like Shatner...

V/r
Spam

[etodd]

Technician, Senior, Master in your track. Those are real. You study/work for them and have experience requirements.

MS, MO, AP, MP, MRO, PIO, GTL, IC1, etc, etc.  You study/work for them and have experience requirements.

All the above mean more to the success of the program than grade ever will be. Those of you who remember me from five years ago, remember that I said I would be happy just being "Senior Member". I still feel that way. After the six month period went by the CC made me a 2nd Lt without asking. Oh well.  And then the next step, was my Wing Commander "asking nicely" that as many as possible get to level II, so yes, I did the online OBC and then SLS on a Saturday, so here I sit 1st Lt.  On my 101 card anyway. Never received a certificate, never asked for one, and of course will never order the bling since all I wear is polo. OK, yes .... I do have the Senior Mission Pilot wings on my polo, so you can laugh at me for that.

Yes, I'm the odd one here and I know it. But for me, its all about the JOBS. Training people to do them and helping us all to excel, so we can work these missions.

Search this forum. Heck, people been arguing these same args for many years about roles/rank/grade ... and will still be arguing for many more years. In the meantime, us workers bees will just keep busy getting jobs done.

JMHOs of course. Few ever agree. LOL

[JohhnyD]

The CAP effort to complete PME and requirements to earn CAP Levels, likewise. But really... our grades are honorary and a CAP grade is not the same as a military one, however one earned it. That's my point.

Hitting a tender spot here, just like Shatner...

V/r
Spam

Nope, it is clear, you appear to hold all CAP grade in contempt while you look down on Chief Dandridge for not wanting to go from Command Chief to 2nd Lt.

I get it. You have no respect for what CAP rank/grade represents. And yet you also appear to mock the veterans who want to be NCOs. Cognitive dissonance much?

Q.E.D.

[Holding Pattern]

At the end of the day, we are all fake Sergeants, fake Captains, fake Colonels, within a CAP context. We shouldn't ever forget that or let the costume play color our real relationships and influence us to keep stereotypical insults alive.

As Mister Dandrige apparently did, in a very public role.

R/s
Mister (not LTC, CAP, today) Spam

Perhaps I'm missing the respect component of calling everyone's advancement of grade "fake."

Can you clarify how this statement is respectful of the work that tens of thousands of members put in to achieve their respective grades?

OK, Pattern, is "pretend" better? "Pretend Major", "Play Chief"?

Earned military grades deserve respect and thanks - I think we all agree on that. The CAP effort to complete PME and requirements to earn CAP Levels, likewise. But really... our grades are honorary and a CAP grade is not the same as a military one, however one earned it. That's my point.

Hitting a tender spot here, just like Shatner...

V/r
Spam

Only in that you are disrespecting yourself and the membership repeatedly are you "hitting a tender spot."

Do you consider adherence to the core values to be a fake thing too?

[SarDragon]

OK, bacon won the poll.

OTOH, no one else did, and there seems to be very little chance that anyone's mind to going to get changed.

So, on that note, an E♭, We once again end our fruitless discussion.

Click.