FO, TFO, SFO, and SM

[davedove]

When I first joined, though they called me sir or Senior Member Bowers (I actually preferred the latter at the time) I actually took a LOT of direction from cadets. I figured anyone who had put several years into the program, wore a uniform better than most AD Service Men or Women that I know and was polite and kind with their "suggestions" probably had a lot to teach me. That said I figured SMWOG ranked right up there with MAGGOT or CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVER (see what I did there? heh) and I didn't say much other than "don't trip over that rock" for my first 6 months.

That is of course an opinion based partially on my lack of prior service. I just figured if I wanted the respect of the cadets later I needed to do my best to show them the respect they are due as early on as possible.

Rank structure is not the same thing as experience.  In the RM the 2nd Lt outranks all the Sergeants, but he would be wise to listen to their suggestions.

[exFlight Officer]

My only issue in the whole FO business is that their grade is not noted on eServices.  To me that is unacceptable since all other grades to include SM NCOs are.

I also agree.  I don't see what is so hard about adding another data entry field in eServices.  It would a great step in moving towards making all our records online.

+1   

[bassque]

I've always wondered what would be the impact of going to a some level of stripes before the officer rank as a part of the professional development.  Personally, I think it would help some senior members get quicker results from professional development with a quicker rank structure (similar but different than the cadets of course) which may be motivation for some if they see that they are progressing in the program.  Complete Level 1 = TSgt (5 stripes)  1 stripe for each task in Level 1.  eServices and OpSec = Airman.  Intro to Safety = AFC, Cadet Protection = SrAmn. 


Dunno.  Not that that is the perfect way but just a though.  Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time. 

[SARDOC]

Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time.

Yes..The development of an "enlisted" rank structure has been discussed on many occasions.  I think there is some merit to it but you will soon find that there is a faction that will absolutely reject the discussion under the notion that what we have works well enough so if you don't like it leave.  I think it can provide more steps for advancement and recognition for continued service and expertise without really entering "management"

[bassque]

Just a thought which I'm sure has been addressed at some point in time.

Yes..The development of an "enlisted" rank structure has been discussed on many occasions.  I think there is some merit to it but you will soon find that there is a faction that will absolutely reject the discussion under the notion that what we have works well enough so if you don't like it leave.  I think it can provide more steps for advancement and recognition for continued service and expertise without really entering "management"

Yea I figured as much.  And I know the hardline stance of the status quo die hards.  Kind of a shame really. The garden salads can only get so big I guess but to you're point for recognition for continued service I think is a good.

[Spaceman3750]

I laugh a little bit when folk call me lieutenant because they don't know what to do with the little stripey things on my collar .

[exFlight Officer]

I laugh a little bit when folk call me lieutenant because they don't know what to do with the little stripey things on my collar .

One of my favorite lines that I have gotten, "Sir, what is the line between your Lt. bar mean?". This was back when I was a TFO 


Hey, Lieutenant is better than Cadet!  I've had Senior Members mistake me for a cadet many times. The awkward part is saying "Sir/Ma'am, I am not a cadet. I am a --insert FO rank here--. "

[Spaceman3750]

That hasn't been a big problem for me like I thought it was going to be. But I also conduct myself like a senior, so there's not really any room for error. I have come across a couple of people who recognize that I'm a senior, but think that being under 21 makes me less of one (think uber-cadet or something like that).

At a bivouac a few weeks ago a cadet walked up to me and said "Sir, I noticed that you're wearing warrant officer insignia" .

[Ned]

Hey, Lieutenant is better than Cadet! 

Better yet is Cadet Lieutenant!

But sadly, only about 15% of our members get that far.   

[johnnyb47]

When I first joined, though they called me sir or Senior Member Bowers (I actually preferred the latter at the time) I actually took a LOT of direction from cadets. I figured anyone who had put several years into the program, wore a uniform better than most AD Service Men or Women that I know and was polite and kind with their "suggestions" probably had a lot to teach me. That said I figured SMWOG ranked right up there with MAGGOT or CONSCIENTIOUS OBSERVER (see what I did there? heh) and I didn't say much other than "don't trip over that rock" for my first 6 months.

That is of course an opinion based partially on my lack of prior service. I just figured if I wanted the respect of the cadets later I needed to do my best to show them the respect they are due as early on as possible.

Rank structure is not the same thing as experience.  In the RM the 2nd Lt outranks all the Sergeants, but he would be wise to listen to their suggestions.

but does an OT joining the Air Force out really rank anyone for the first few weeks they're in new recruit training?

[lordmonar]

One of the reasons why OTS is a Maxwell and BMTS is at Lackland.

OT's and Cadets don't fit anywhere in the chain of command.

[titanII]

OT's and Cadets don't fit anywhere in the chain of command.

AFROTC cadets are enlisted members of the Air Force Reserve serving without pay, until they comission... 
(Kidding). I don't think that means they're part of that CoC. Not to say that I can't be corrected...

[coudano]

'course there's the meme idea to disconnect professional development from rank.

reserve "officer" ranks for those in positions of command and responsibility (minimum age 21?).
Everyone else wears something like a 5 tiered FO system.

Then, you reward the "hard jobs" with commissioned rank.


If you leave the "hard job", you leave the commissioned rank with it, and go back to whatever FO style stripes you are based on your PD completion.  Or possibly to a different 'commissioned' rank, based on the different position you take, after leaving the previous one.

I can see due respect being paid to those with 4 and 5 lines just like you see due respect being paid to a CW4 and CW5.  Yet still having the proper relationship between the GRW complete ex wing commander, being subordinate to the Capt squadron commander of the unit they are now just being the "AEO" in (or just drinking coffee and BSing at).

Go to a single PD ribbon, with attachments for level.

Find some way to show level besides commissioned rank (other than the ribbon // for wear on utilities)

[lordmonar]

I suggested the same thing way back.

I would not worry about the PD ribbon attachments....that's what your FO rank marks show.

[coudano]

Depending on how you draw the lines, there might be 49,262 "commissioned officer billets" in all of CAP using a system like this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjeM9Al0JSYXdGFwRGZYVjdpbzE4NjlrUWE2cmwxN2c

The actual allocation of billets could be up for debate.  And my estimates are certainly a little off.


Considering that there are only 34972 senior members in CAP right now,
It is more than feasible that every senior member in CAP over the age of 21 could hold an officer rank if they so chose to take a job that earns it.  That's even with the reality of one senior member filling multiple jobs, at multiple levels.

8830 members ranked captain and above.
Out of 35,000 senior members, that's 25% of our senior members.

Seriously, I expect that even with that, there will STILL be people around without a commissioned rank.  Because something like half of our senior members that we have on the books don't actually *DO* anything.  As it is, even with a system like this, you'll see "empty suits" appointed to jobs but not doing anything.  And admittedly, probably some GOBN, appointing of buddies to high ranking jobs.


Would I give up my Lt Col, in order to go be a Capt?  (i'm a squadron deputy commander for cadets)
If EVERYONE had to do this?  Sure.  (my current sqcc is a captain)
It (might) even motivate me to go take a 'difficult' job at a higher level to keep the silver oak leaf.

I would still appreciate a way to show my level 4 (and 5 when i get it finished) regardless of the rank I take.

[jimmydeanno]

Depending on how you draw the lines, there might be 49,262 "commissioned officer billets" in all of CAP using a system like this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjeM9Al0JSYXdGFwRGZYVjdpbzE4NjlrUWE2cmwxN2c

The actual allocation of billets could be up for debate.  And my estimates are certainly a little off.


Considering that there are only 34972 senior members in CAP right now,
It is more than feasible that every senior member in CAP over the age of 21 could hold an officer rank if they so chose to take a job that earns it.  That's even with the reality of one senior member filling multiple jobs, at multiple levels.


Seriously, I expect that even with that, there will STILL be people around without a commissioned rank.  Because something like half of our senior members that we have on the books don't actually *DO* anything.  As it is, even with a system like this, you'll see "empty suits" appointed to jobs but not doing anything.  And admittedly, probably some GOBN, appointing of buddies to high ranking jobs.


Would I give up my Lt Col, in order to go be a Capt?  (i'm a squadron deputy commander for cadets)
If EVERYONE had to do this?  Sure.
It (might) even motivate me to go take a 'difficult' job at a higher level to keep the silver oak leaf.

I would still appreciate a way to show my level 4 (and 5 when i get it finished) regardless of the rank I take.

While I think that people's primary motivation behind volunteering with our organization should be based around the rank they receive, I'm not sure that I agree with the elimination of that persons rank after they served in a position that warranted it.  We can argue that it might entice someone to move up, but even in that scenario, a National Commander would revert back to a FO5.  "Thanks for leading 65K volunteers, now get in line."  I'd probably be in favor of successful completion of two terms and keeping it, or something along that line.

I suppose the question becomes is the title "Former X" enough payment for the service that the person gave to the organization?

[coudano]

While I think that people's primary motivation behind volunteering with our organization should be based around the rank they receive, I'm not sure that I agree with the elimination of that persons rank after they served in a position that warranted it.  We can argue that it might entice someone to move up, but even in that scenario, a National Commander would revert back to a FO5.  "Thanks for leading 65K volunteers, now get in line."  I'd probably be in favor of successful completion of two terms and keeping it, or something along that line.

I suppose the question becomes is the title "Former X" enough payment for the service that the person gave to the organization?

The problem is that CAP isn't an "up and out" system.
In the military, you do a 20+ year career and you might spit out the top as a Lt Col or higher.
And then you retire, and you're gone (have a nice life, golfing)

However, in CAP, after 20 years, you might be the wing commander, and finish,
and then go back to being the squadron AEO, and you might stay for ANOTHER 20 years.  or longer...
Then back to a tour as a region staffer, then back to a squadron,
and so forth and so on...

Our structure doesn't quite work like a military structure,
so our rank system shouldn't behave (quite) like a military structure.

I'm wholly in favor of your 'retired' grade being your highest held.
And I could go either way on letting people wear their highest held for 'ceremonials'

[coudano]

In short, your rank can basically either show time and experience,
What have you done for me?

Or it can show current status position and authority relationship.
What have you done for me, lately...



In CAP we can't have it both ways.


Additionally, rank may have its privileges, but it also has its responsibilities.
But in CAP that's not particularly true.
If you attain the rank, you keep the privileges even when you completely abdicate the responsibilities.
Which seems a little silly, no?

It also lets those who want to, let's say, just fly airplanes, do that.  Without taking any staff position, they are a "flight officer" and all they do is "fly".  And i'm fine with that...

[Spaceman3750]

Or, you know, we could leave it like it is, because while it looks a little funny it works just fine. How would we do our three missions better by screwing with the SM ranks?

[coudano]

Or, you know, we could leave it like it is, because while it looks a little funny it works just fine. How would we do our three missions better by screwing with the SM ranks?

That's certainly an option, like I said above, the system we have does one thing.  A system like the one i've proposed does a different thing.  It's all about which one works better.

Theoretically, we could attract better and more motivated people to the positions requiring more motivation and responsibility, and keep performance of people in those positions up.  Cosmetically, we could avoid inversions that confuse other agencies that we bump up against from time to time (although I don't really believe that's THAT big of an issue).

How many members gripe about being "more like the military".
If you value that highly, this is a step in that direction.