I need help with a photoshop project

[RogueLeader]

I need a willing member to create a version of CAP Stripes (using the current NCO Stripes as a template) and Make stripes for Amn, A1C and SrA.

I'm working on a proposal of my own for a revamp of the program that makes clear sense.

Any takers?

[abdsp51]

Sir

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the program hammered out and in place before revamping?  What would these Adult AMN do? 

[RogueLeader]

The proposal that I'm working spells it out, but the bottom line is the Enlisted Corps are going to be doing what most members are doing right now, its the Officer Corps that will be getting a revamp that includes more training, particularly in Leadership skills, and Mentoring.

The pictures of the new grade are to go along with the proposal.

[etodd]

....... its the Officer Corps that will be getting a revamp that includes more training, particularly in Leadership skills, and Mentoring.

My guess is that creating the information for all that training could take a few years to develop and work its way through the system. Creating the new ribbons would be item number 679 on the priority list and could be done upon nearing completion.

How far along are you creating all these new training regimens? Training manuals written? SQTR worksheets ready?

[RogueLeader]

While you aren't necessarily wrong about how long the approval process can take, based on some of the stuff learned at NSC, this may not take the time it traditionally would.  That's about all I can say about that.

A lot of the specific leadership material would be pulled from grade appropriate AF Officer Training.

No new ribbons would need to be created.  Just change the authorized devices to denote the specific differences in the training.  Such as the Level 3 for Enlisted is the same, except for the added Leadership Component required for Officers.  Enlisted would get the Loening Ribbon, Officers that only have the Squadron Officer School level Leadership would add a bronze star to the Ribbon, while those that took Squadron Officer School (in-residence or correspondence) would add a silver to the ribbon.

There would be a Leadership Component for Level 3-5, and move OBC to Level 1.  This is still in the basic draft stage, but I'm happy with the concept.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

DS - while I do not have your requested pics, I fully track with your intention.  Just food for thought, but, there are other volunteer paramilitary (there's that word again folks) organizations that utilize an enlisted to officer track based on skill and leadership abilities.  The one that immediately jumps to mind is the State Military Reserve (and specifically in my case, the California SMR).

I know in CA we have several members dual-hatted in both CAP and the CSMR, and perhaps there is something similar in your wing?  If you are truly intending to undertake such a monumental task, it may be worthwhile  benchmarking how such an organization functions with this grade progression process?  My 2₵

[RogueLeader]

Fully tracking.  There isn't anything like that here in Wyoming, but I have already considered that into this whole paradigm shift- and am putting that whole process into this proposal.  Your $.02 is well appreciated.  If you could get me some contact information for them for ideas that can be adopted wholesale, or adapted for CAP service- that would be great.

[abdsp51]

....... its the Officer Corps that will be getting a revamp that includes more training, particularly in Leadership skills, and Mentoring.

My guess is that creating the information for all that training could take a few years to develop and work its way through the system. Creating the new ribbons would be item number 679 on the priority list and could be done upon nearing completion.

How far along are you creating all these new training regimens? Training manuals written? SQTR worksheets ready?

You don't need SQTRs for promotion or advancement.  That's an ES specific term.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

If you could get me some contact information for them for ideas that can be adopted wholesale, or adapted for CAP service- that would be great.

I will contact the two individuals that I know, and see if they are willing to help ya.  Once I get their blessing, I'll send you their contact info.

[RogueLeader]

I've actually been thinking this over for a while, but NSC helped the idea coalesce into a rational, coherent, measurable, objective proposal with defined reasons for the creation of an Enlisted Corps other than "Because"  Now, I just need to get written down in that manner and run it up the flagpole.

If you could get me some contact information for them for ideas that can be adopted wholesale, or adapted for CAP service- that would be great.

I will contact the two individuals that I know, and see if they are willing to help ya.  Once I get their blessing, I'll send you their contact info.

Roger that.

[Hyperion]

http://imgur.com/a/F5Ykf

Link to an album with all CAP enlisted ranks based off Vanguard's photos from CMSgt down to Amn. Took about half an hour. Hope it helps.

- Hyperion

[Jester]

http://imgur.com/a/F5Ykf

Link to an album with all CAP enlisted ranks based off Vanguard's photos from CMSgt down to Amn. Took about half an hour. Hope it helps.

- Hyperion

Looks good. I dig it.

[Майор Хаткевич]

http://imgur.com/a/F5Ykf

Link to an album with all CAP enlisted ranks based off Vanguard's photos from CMSgt down to Amn. Took about half an hour. Hope it helps.

- Hyperion

Nice work.

[RogueLeader]

http://imgur.com/a/F5Ykf

Link to an album with all CAP enlisted ranks based off Vanguard's photos from CMSgt down to Amn. Took about half an hour. Hope it helps.

- Hyperion

Sweet.  Thanks.

[Hyperion]

Happy to help! If anyone needs me to help edit the photos some more I'll give my best shot.

I fully agree with the idea of a junior enlisted in CAP. In fact, junior enlisted can help us remove the confusing Flight Officer grades. Have new SMs under 21 join as junior enlisted while cadets with milestones can transfer their grades to appropriate enlisted grade, such as the Billy Mitchell giving E-3 like how it does for the AF. Maybe Spaatz can get SrA? Just throwing out ideas to help us get rid of a confusing area (Flight Officers) and empower a new area (enlisted). Regardless, good luck Rogue Leader.

Hyperion

[SarDragon]

Spaatz -> SrA? That's an insult, IMHO.

[Hyperion]

Spaatz -> SrA? That's an insult, IMHO.

The Air Force only gives CAP cadets up to E-3 for their Mitchell, regardless if they were a Mitchell, Earhart, Eaker, or Spaatz. I doubt the Air Force would go for our program if we allowed 18 year olds to be immediately SSgt / TSgt because they were a C/Col, which is the whole reason we have Flight Officer ranks in the first place: to please the Air Force from having Captains running around at 18 because they were a Spaatz. While Spaatz recipients have done an excellent job achieving such a high cadet rank, their award was already given to them in the form of being a C/ Col. If preferred, Mitchell could get E-2, Earhart E-3, and Spaatz E-4 to ensure more appropriate grade staggering. Personally I'd prefer the AF way of any cadet at or past Mitchell just gets E-3.

When you see a CAP Staff Sergeant, you know they had the maturity necessary to become an NCO in the military. we need to ensure cadets, regardless how high they achieved in the program, have appropriate time to mature to better represent the grade they now wear on their uniform.

[SarDragon]

Giving E-3 for Mitchell in the Air Force is fair, since the skills learned in CAP fit the E-3 skill set. In order to become an E-4, you need to have skills in a job field. CAP does not furnish these.

On the other hand, a Spaatz cadet has many CAP skills that could carry over to an NCO status in CAP.

[Falling Hare]

RogueLeader,

This is a great effort!  Keep us all informed with the progress of this...would love to see a complete copy of your proposal.

You should post future messages under some thing like "CAP enlisted ranks" since this would get a lot more attention on the list...at first I thought
this was purely and IT question.

When I first enlisted in CAP back in 1982 I nearly fell out of my chair when they said I would be an instant officer.  Never liked the "everyone is an officer" concept and never felt comfortable with it....it screams un-professionalism.

Best of luck on this project!

[RogueLeader]

Well, to be fair, this was/is only about that specific IT issue, as I don't have photoshop or the skills to do it right.  I gave some background as to WHY I wanted it done.  And it's not just an enlisted grade structure, its a paradigm shift for the Senior Program.  More information will be forthcoming as it develops.  On, the other hand, some comments such as the Cadet transition, is one I hadn't considered, but now it's being incorporated into the paper.

[Falling Hare]

"...a paradigm shift for the Senior Program" is something that we have needed for a long time. 

Out of curiosity I have been ordering CAP publications circa 1950-1960 to try and get a handle on the structure and assignments of enlisted and NCO personnel in the old days.  A 1949 manual just seems to assume that it was a mirror image of what the Army was doing.

I'm sure this will help dovetail nicely with what the NCO group is working on; be sure you keep them in the loop.  And there will be some of us
(non-prior service) who were formerly CAP officers who would like to use our experience to rejoin CAP in the new NCO corps.

Would like to see a copy of your submission when it is done! :clap:

[Eclipse]

"...a paradigm shift for the Senior Program" is something that we have needed for a long time.

Agreed.

This is not the one needed. It will make things either worse then they are, or be nothing more then window dressing,
and we don't need more of that.

If, at the end of the day, the only person willing to be a Squadron CC is a CAP SrA.  That's who will be the CC, period.
Otherwise you fold the squadron, and add the patch to the pile.

And you can't even force that lady or gent to to training after the fact, since if you're in that position to start with,
you're also not in the position to be telling a volunteer who was your selection of last resort to do more work.

Lose the grade all together? You have my attention. 

Temporary grade for those in command jobs only?  I'm listening.

A real enlisted program within CAP.  Nope.

It.

Will.

Never.

Work.

But why?  I really want to be a CAP NCO!  They do all the real work and are the backbone of the military and other stuff I read!

Because, for the nth time, a real NCO program requires the caste system that will kill a volunteer organization,
but worse then the caste system is the idea that you can somehow create billets, manning tables, and job restrictions
in an organization which is seeing double-digit year-over-year, accelerating member loss.

"What's the big deal?  If we have to, we'll just let the NCOs do those jobs..."

Then you just broke your little ships, and the whole exercise was a waste.

You need 30-50% more active members, not to mention consistent, required initial and ongoing training,
and someway to compel volunteer to follow the rules (which people from NHQ have made very clear on this forum
is not possible for even the most basic things like dress), before you can even consider an idea like this.

[Spaceman3750]

... paradigm shift for the Senior Program.

There is no "senior program". The "senior program" which you refer to IS CAP. There is a "cadet program", because cadets are a mission unto themselves, but seniors are the core of CAP and the means by which we accomplish our three missions.

Maybe, just maybe, our members are doing great work in their communities, for free, and as such are worthy of the small token of appreciation that is officer grade. It's not much, but it means something.

CAP faces a pretty significant problem right now, on the local level, in almost every squadron in the country: CAP does not have enough qualified personnel to support current or future operations in all three of our mission statements. We should probably work on that one for a while before we decide to disenfranchise what few motivated and qualified members we do have by saying "thank you Major for your 15 years of dedicated service, but under the new structure you will be an A1C from now on."

[Storm Chaser]

"...a paradigm shift for the Senior Program" is something that we have needed for a long time.

Agreed.

This is not the one needed. It will make things either worse then they are, or be nothing more then window dressing,
and we don't need more of that.

If, at the end of the day, the only person willing to be a Squadron CC is a CAP SrA.  That's who will be the CC, period.
Otherwise you fold the squadron, and add the patch to the pile.

And you can't even force that lady or gent to to training after the fact, since if you're in that position to start with,
you're also not in the position to be telling a volunteer who was your selection of last resort to do more work.

Lose the grade all together? You have my attention. 

Temporary grade for those in command jobs only?  I'm listening.

A real enlisted program within CAP.  Nope.

It.

Will.

Never.

Work.

You had me at "lose the grade all together" or "temporary grade for those in command jobs only..." It may never happen, but I think it's worth discussing.

[Storm Chaser]

Maybe, just maybe, our members are doing great work in their communities, for free, and as such are worthy of the small token of appreciation that is officer grade. It's not much, but it means something.

Officer grades DO mean something and should NOT be used as a way to show appreciation to our members. That's why we have awards for.

[Eclipse]

Maybe, just maybe, our members are doing great work in their communities, for free, and as such are worthy of the small token of appreciation that is officer grade. It's not much, but it means something.

Officer grades DO mean something and should NOT be used as a way to show appreciation to our members. That's why we have awards for.

I agree on the intention, but from a practical perspective that's not happening, in either the positive or negative way it should.  PD awards are primarily
objective, and you can't really hold someone back from a Level, but grade, especially over Captain, is as much about being on the "good list" that year,
or at least not being on the "bad" list, as meeting some requirement or accepting more responsibility, and far too much of it is purely based
on timing.

Put in for your grade as a sitting CC or successful staffer with no intention of moving up or around, odds are it will be approved, hold off on the
paperwork until after that last SUI or until you step down as a successful CC and want to take a breather to go to NESA and be a mission pilot for a while?

No FG for you, because you are "stepping back", meanwhile less qualified / experienced people around you are getting promoted because they take an asst whatever job
at Group, wing, or region.

[Eclipse]

Further to this, this topic highlights how broken the current system is:  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20940.0

As mentioned before, this is not "fixed" on the low end until the high end is fixed as well.  Giving subordinates some
notion their grade has more "weight", while the commanders and staff with their weightless grade are stil in charge is
a good way to accelerate CAP's wind down.

All those FGOs have to be "up or out", and they don't return to the squadron after a wing or region tour.

[Eclipse]

One last thing on this.

The major ROI with CAP is adults bringing outside experience and skills to what would normally be internally, organically
developed resources.

Cadets dark-siding are going to be an issue because while they bring relevent experience to the table, but that experience
while useful in the macro, has very little to do with squadron operations, and far-between are 21 year olds who are capable of managing adults
twice their age and accomplishment, let alone volunteers.  Anyone who believes the average 40 year old CAP pilot is going to be
happy wearing mosquito wings and taking direction from a 21 year old CAP Captain doesn't understand human nature, nor one of the reasons
mission-skills promotions are granted today, and if special and mission skills appointments are allowed to continue, then again, Jean Luc, your little
ships are broken.

Supporting this point are the new members who walk in the door and accept director-level staff jobs at the wing level, sometimes before their
ID card is dry.  How much sense does it make for the Wing Director of Finance to be an A1C?  How about the Group ESO?  Evan at the Squadron
level it makes no sense.

"Fine. No more appointments like this."

Excellent.  More jobs going unfilled just so that the little ships aren't broken.

[USACAP]

What you said.
Spot on, 100% agree. 
Except about the NCOs doing all the work part.
I made it to E5 before I got commissioned and am now a field grade.
Different ranks do different work. I was never going to be a strategic planner on the E side and I will never again roll up my sleeves and change a thrown M1 track as an O5 or O6.

"...a paradigm shift for the Senior Program" is something that we have needed for a long time.

Agreed.

This is not the one needed. It will make things either worse then they are, or be nothing more then window dressing,
and we don't need more of that.

If, at the end of the day, the only person willing to be a Squadron CC is a CAP SrA.  That's who will be the CC, period.
Otherwise you fold the squadron, and add the patch to the pile.

And you can't even force that lady or gent to to training after the fact, since if you're in that position to start with,
you're also not in the position to be telling a volunteer who was your selection of last resort to do more work.

Lose the grade all together? You have my attention. 

Temporary grade for those in command jobs only?  I'm listening.

A real enlisted program within CAP.  Nope.

It.

Will.

Never.

Work.

But why?  I really want to be a CAP NCO!  They do all the real work and are the backbone of the military and other stuff I read!

Because, for the nth time, a real NCO program requires the caste system that will kill a volunteer organization,
but worse then the caste system is the idea that you can somehow create billets, manning tables, and job restrictions
in an organization which is seeing double-digit year-over-year, accelerating member loss.

"What's the big deal?  If we have to, we'll just let the NCOs do those jobs..."

Then you just broke your little ships, and the whole exercise was a waste.

You need 30-50% more active members, not to mention consistent, required initial and ongoing training,
and someway to compel volunteer to follow the rules (which people from NHQ have made very clear on this forum
is not possible for even the most basic things like dress), before you can even consider an idea like this.

[USAFRiggerGuy]

Honestly, without any education requirements in place to become a officer in CAP why would anyone over 21 want to be a AMN or A1C instead of just doing 6 months and becoming a 2Lt.  The only way that CAP can form a legitimate enlisted corps that is junior enlisted is by implementing education standards for SMs 21+. Sure it would be easy to make the FO grades AMN, A1C & SrA and allow the SM to continue as an NCO at 21+ but what about SM that join after 18? They will just want to go straight to the officer track unless there is something preventing them too. I mean would you really want to wear one stripe or a butter bar and get saluted if you had the choice? Just my .2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RogueLeader]

Short form is that the main difference is that the time commitment to CAP, and the expectations of Professional Development is going to be the determining factor.  Want/only able to do the bare minimums as they are now- Enlisted you are. Have the time and desire to go further than what is currently expected and step up to be unpaid professionals: Officer Track it is.  I'm not going to suggest that Officers must have a college degree- that's not practical or even necessary for CAP, but there is going to be more in the way of PD.

[JeffDG]

I'm not going to suggest that Officers must have a college degree- that's not practical or even necessary for CAP, but there is going to be more in the way of PD.

I think CAP's tie of grade and PD is something that needs to be broken.  You receive PD recognition with awards through the Wilson, why should grade also be given?

It would be far more practical to tie grade to positions of responsibility than to PD, IMHO.

[Spaceman3750]

We should probably try to make our existing PD meaningful before we start layering on more classes.

"More PD" is CAP's equivalent of throwing money at problems. Sometimes it gets results, but they're way more expensive than they need to be.

[Mustang]

Giving E-3 for Mitchell in the Air Force is fair, since the skills learned in CAP fit the E-3 skill set. In order to become an E-4, you need to have skills in a job field. CAP does not furnish these.

On the other hand, a Spaatz cadet has many CAP skills that could carry over to an NCO status in CAP.

Cadets who earn the Spaatz generally seek commissions, not enlistments.

[PHall]

Giving E-3 for Mitchell in the Air Force is fair, since the skills learned in CAP fit the E-3 skill set. In order to become an E-4, you need to have skills in a job field. CAP does not furnish these.

On the other hand, a Spaatz cadet has many CAP skills that could carry over to an NCO status in CAP.

Cadets who earn the Spaatz generally seek commissions, not enlistments.

But there has been a fair number of Spaatz Cadets who have gone the Enlisted route. Just because you got your Spaatz doesn't mean you went to and finished college.

[riffraff]

My $0.02: Implement the unused USAF WO-grades, WO1 thru CW5 for SMs. Temporary commissioned ranks for command/leadership positions. Vacate the position? Revert to your permanent WO rank (or WO equivalent of the commissioned rank held). TIG/qual gates for movement within the WO ranks similar to todays O-1 thru O-4.

Result: All SMs get to be officers (apparently still very important to some); zero confusion with USAF officer ranks; no more bizarre formations of commanders outranked by their formations; ability for former Wing/Region staffers to revert/return to squadrons as CW5s.

Using the US Army model, CW3-CW5 are 'field grade' ranks so these folks could go with 'farts and darts' service caps.

[PHall]

My $0.02: Implement the unused USAF WO-grades, WO1 thru CW5 for SMs. Temporary commissioned ranks for command/leadership positions. Vacate the position? Revert to your permanent WO rank. TIG/qual gates for movement within the WO ranks similar to todays O-1 thru O-4.

Result: All SMs get to be officers; zero confusion with USAF officer ranks; no more bizarre formations of commanders outranked by their formations.

Using your reasoning, ALL Senior Members should be Senior Members Without Grade. Commander, Administration Officer, etc. would just be a position.
No need to link a  "rank" with a position.

There, "problem" solved.

[riffraff]

My $0.02: Implement the unused USAF WO-grades, WO1 thru CW5 for SMs. Temporary commissioned ranks for command/leadership positions. Vacate the position? Revert to your permanent WO rank. TIG/qual gates for movement within the WO ranks similar to todays O-1 thru O-4.

Result: All SMs get to be officers; zero confusion with USAF officer ranks; no more bizarre formations of commanders outranked by their formations.

Using your reasoning, ALL Senior Members should be Senior Members Without Grade. Commander, Administration Officer, etc. would just be a position.
No need to link a  "rank" with a position.

There, "problem" solved.

I would be okay with it.  You'd still need some visual indicator of 'position' for interacting with other squadrons/agencies. Squadron X may know "Bob" is in charge but Agency Y would probably prefer "Bob" to be wearing something indicating he's in charge.

However, we are wed to the military rank model and our model does not align with it much, if at all. WO grades would allow all the 'rank and file' to still be officers; still have a means of showing career progression; and still fit within the military rank model we all espouse to being part of. Commanders would hold commissioned rank. All other SMs would be WOs.

[JeffDG]

I would be okay with it.  You'd still need some visual indicator of 'position' for interacting with other squadrons/agencies. Squadron X may know "Bob" is in charge but Agency Y would probably prefer "Bob" to be wearing something indicating he's in charge.

Most outside agencies I interact with (like EMAs), the standard uniform is polo shirt which has zero indication of grade, and the same amount of confusion (zero).

[PHall]

My $0.02: Implement the unused USAF WO-grades, WO1 thru CW5 for SMs. Temporary commissioned ranks for command/leadership positions. Vacate the position? Revert to your permanent WO rank. TIG/qual gates for movement within the WO ranks similar to todays O-1 thru O-4.

Result: All SMs get to be officers; zero confusion with USAF officer ranks; no more bizarre formations of commanders outranked by their formations.

Using your reasoning, ALL Senior Members should be Senior Members Without Grade. Commander, Administration Officer, etc. would just be a position.
No need to link a  "rank" with a position.

There, "problem" solved.

I would be okay with it.  You'd still need some visual indicator of 'position' for interacting with other squadrons/agencies. Squadron X may know "Bob" is in charge but Agency Y would probably prefer "Bob" to be wearing something indicating he's in charge.

However, we are wed to the military rank model and our model does not align with it much, if at all. WO grades would allow all the 'rank and file' to still be officers; still have a means of showing career progression; and still fit within the military rank model we all espouse to being part of. Commanders would hold commissioned rank. All other SMs would be WOs.

The only indication that somebody is a Commander right now is the Commander's Badge.
And I don't expect anyone outside of CAP to know what that looks like.

[JeffDG]

The only indication that somebody is a Commander right now is the Commander's Badge.
And I don't expect anyone outside of CAP to know what that looks like.

And if Maj Gen Vasquez signs in on a mission that I'm the IC for, my IC badge trumps the two stars on his shoulders.  I'd be polite about it, but the stars to put him in charge of an incident!

[Luis R. Ramos]

A situation where junior officers commanding senior officers sounds bizarre only to those who may have served. To those of us who have not, it is not.

However even in the military when you think about the possibility there may be a pilot with the grade of Lieutenant in command of an airplane with a Radar Intercept Officer with the grade of Lieutenant Commander, the concept of a junior officer commanding a senior officer, is not so bizarre anymore.

[riffraff]

A situation where junior officers commanding senior officers sounds bizarre only to those who may have served. To those of us who have not, it is not.

However even in the military when you think about the possibility there may be a pilot with the grade of Lieutenant in command of an airplane with a Radar Intercept Officer with the grade of Lieutenant Commander, the concept of a junior officer commanding a senior officer, is not so bizarre anymore.

Big difference between what goes on within an aircraft and what the overall command structure as a whole looks like. Multi-crew aircraft have always has a mix of ranks aboard -- quite often with the example you provided. However, I can assure you that the same scenario does not play out on an organizational level.

I constantly hear reference to USAF Aux and wanting USAF ranks, USAF uniforms, same team, etc. Right up to the point where the rank topic comes up and then it's suddenly "we're different' or 'rank really doesn't matter'. If that's really the case, why are we now talking about adding an enlisted and NCO structure? On top of a dysfunctional officer rank structure?

[JeffDG]

A situation where junior officers commanding senior officers sounds bizarre only to those who may have served. To those of us who have not, it is not.

However even in the military when you think about the possibility there may be a pilot with the grade of Lieutenant in command of an airplane with a Radar Intercept Officer with the grade of Lieutenant Commander, the concept of a junior officer commanding a senior officer, is not so bizarre anymore.

Big difference between what goes on within an aircraft and what the overall command structure as a whole looks like. Multi-crew aircraft have always has a mix of ranks aboard -- quite often with the example you provided. However, I can assure you that the same scenario does not play out on an organizational level.

To use your own example, there's absolutely no reason CAP Wing CC's shouldn't hold their existent rank when assuming these roles, correct? If rank doesn't really matter, why aren't there LTC and COL's at the squadrons? Or MAJ Wing CC's? We bestow the higher ranks for the positions but, at the same time, you're saying the rank inversion shouldn't matter.

I remember shortly after she left the job as CAP/CC, Maj Gen Courter was a member of a MIWG unit commanded by a 1st Lt.

[Eclipse]

I remember shortly after she left the job as CAP/CC, Maj Gen Courter was a member of a MIWG unit commanded by a 1st Lt.

According to others on this board, that has never happened...

Ummm, cite please.  Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned.  I'll wait.

As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.

So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?

Got it.

I was waiting for someone else to bring this up, it's not like it's a secret, then or now.

Maj Gen Courter is assigned to a unit in MIWG, which means that as a 2-star, she is under the direct command authority of a Major
(according to the unit's website), and a Colonel (GLR Region CC), not to mention adding another layer if MIWG has Groups.
This information is available to anyone with Google.

I used an extreme example as hyperbole to make a point about not only a theoretical possibility, but something which is actually
very common in CAP.  The response, by a former board member, was "never happens", when everyone here knows it not only has,
but does.  In fact, anyone studying the CAP grade problem needs to look at that first, before creating another class of
member that makes it worse.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of Field Grade Officers reporting to Company Grade Officers (and even non-officers)
in CAP.  It hasn't caused rioting, and because of the volunteer nature of CAP, and lack of "up or out" culture, it simply "is", but until
that situation is fixed, either organically or by regulation, any talk of "fixing CAP's grade structure" is 100% moot.

[riffraff]

Which is exactly my point. We claim to be part of USAF and are organized along the same lines (wings, squadrons, etc). We work with USAF and use their uniform and rank structure but do not utilize it in an understandable way. From an external viewpoint (meaning USAF/military) how does it look to have a major commanding a 2-star general? Or a sergeant commanding a squadron of captains?

Since many here echo that the rank is disconnected from the job, why have the rank at all? Now we want to introduce an NCO structure into the mix?

I'm sure somewhere back in the day, the officer rank was likely meant to put CAP pilots into alignment with the fact that USAF pilots are commissioned officers. How we got to where we are today? Who knows.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Again, when the military puts lieutenant pilots in command of lieutenant commanders, it does not matter in CAP.

Big difference between what goes on within an aircraft and what the overall command structure as a whole looks like.

The situation under which the model is followed does not matter.

CAP is just doing what the military does.

[Storm Chaser]

There are hundreds, if not thousands of Field Grade Officers reporting to Company Grade Officers (and even non-officers) in CAP.  It hasn't caused rioting, and because of the volunteer nature of CAP, and lack of "up or out" culture, it simply "is", but until that situation is fixed, either organically or by regulation, any talk of "fixing CAP's grade structure" is 100% moot.

It's actually worst. Many of those "Field Grade Officers reporting to Company Grade Officers" have never been commanders or served in any position beyond the squadron level.

[Spaceman3750]

If we put this much effort into solving actual problems, CAP would be a much stronger organization than it is today...

But instead we waste the effort on this, or uniforms. No wonder people complain about how much work CAP is. All of the people with the dedication and drive to actually get things done are arguing on CAPTalk about world-ending problems that nobody outside of this little circle even cares about - inside or out of the organization.

I now return you to your previously-scheduled nonsense.

[SAREXinNY]

I wish you luck with your proposal, RogueLeader.  It makes sense to me to beef up an enlisted/NCO corps.  I'd love to see a program where a majority of people start out enlisted and have to serve x number of years before applying for an officer slot.  Looking back, I would have preferred to have started out 'enlisted' for a few years to get a feel for the organization and culture.

[Ned]

I remember shortly after she left the job as CAP/CC, Maj Gen Courter was a member of a MIWG unit commanded by a 1st Lt.

According to others on this board, that has never happened...

Ummm, cite please.  Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned.  I'll wait.

Hey Bob, if you are going to quote me out of context (while leaving out your own misstatements) and in a totally different thread about Photoshop, give me a "heads up," would ya?

What you actually said was:

- in a world where SMWOGs command squadrons
and can direct the action of generals, trying to portend that being an NCO infers or confers some
special ability to mentor, guide, or lead in a volunteer paradigm simply doesn't work.

What happened was you got caught stating hyperbole as fact.  I agree that it is not uncommon for CAP officers to report to officers of lesser grade.  Which happens in the Real Military from time to time as we have discussed.  (Please don't make me repeat my story about being an Army captain commanding a unit with field grade officers assigned.  Just accept that it happens sometimes.)

What "never happened" was, of course, your specific example.  (GO's assigned to a unit commanded by a SMWOG).  Which you now seek to palm off as hyperbole.  Which is why you got called out on it.  ("Theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75 years of CAP history.")

It is always appropriate to discuss the CAP grade system here on CAPTalk.  Based on the numbers here, it would probably be the second most discussed topic, after uniforms of course. We have been discussing it for many years.  I suppose it is the nature of internet that no one ever seems to change their mind about such things.  But we keep talking about it.  A lot.

The unique part of this particular conversation is that it erupted in the midst of a Photoshop thread.  Now I suppose I will have to check the "Electronic Flight Bag" thread to learn something new about ABUs.   

[Eclipse]

What you actually said was:

- in a world where SMWOGs command squadrons
and can direct the action of generals, trying to portend that being an NCO infers or confers some
special ability to mentor, guide, or lead in a volunteer paradigm simply doesn't work.

What happened was you got caught stating hyperbole as fact.

I actually I stated "fact" as "fact" (note the word "can") and then you chose to call that out with a "never happens" response,
when in fact, the situation, if not the per se example, happens all the time. 

Instead of patting us on the head and explaining the nature of the internet, perhaps just addressing the issue, and not the
poster or the minutia? 

[Ned]

Ahhh, I see the problem.  You are using a non-standard definition of the word "fact" to better suit your "argument."

Most dictionaries define the word "fact" to mean "Something that truly exists or happens.  Something that has actual existence."

(See, e.g., Merriam-Webster)

That possibility that something might happen is not - in fact - a "fact." It is a potentiality, possibility, or perhaps even a contingency.   

If it makes you feel better, you may focus on the word "can" and I'll focus on your use of the word "command" in "SMWOGs command squadrons [with GOs assigned]."  Which was, and is, blatantly false.  Because it has never happened.  But we agree that it is a theoretically possibility under our system.

But much more importantly than semantic discussions, it sounds like you have identified an "issue" that you'd like to have discussed. 

Please state your issue.

[Eclipse]

If it makes you feel better, you may focus on the word "can" and I'll focus on your use of the word "command" in "SMWOGs command squadrons [with GOs assigned]."  Which was, and is, blatantly false. 

Not only is it not "blatantly false", it's not what I wrote...

Comments regarding CAP's comparison to the USAF in terms of structure also fail on examination,
as grade confers no authority whatsoever - in a world where SMWOGs command squadrons
and can direct the action of generals, trying to portend that being an NCO infers or confers some
special ability to mentor, guide, or lead in a volunteer paradigm simply doesn't work.

You and Lord decided to read it with your own filter and ignore both the context and the actual sentence.

In fact:

SMWOG do command squadrons.

SMWOG can direct the actions of generals.

Nothing in the statement, sentence, or context, requires or implies "there are currently SMWOG commanding who
have generals in their unit", nor does that state need to exist in order for the point to valid.

But it's easier to pick on semantics then actually address the issue.  However In this case, the semantic dissection failed as well.

The issue?  CAP's grade structure, from an internal perspective, matches the duties it's members have just fine.
When compared externally, the comparisons fail and are irrelevant.

Until the above is addressed, any other conversations about "fixing the situation" (by making it worse) should cease.

Putting huge rims with spinners on a Buick doesn't make it "not a Buick", but it shows the world where your focus actually is.



That's the issue.

[Ned]

Bob, it's OK to say something like "I overstated my argument to make a point" or something like that.  Really.

But now that you have stated what you consider the issue to be:

The issue?  CAP's grade structure, from an internal perspective, matches the duties it's members have just fine.
When compared externally, the comparisons fail and are irrelevant.

Just to be sure, then.  Let me restate it for you.  Correct me if I am missing your point.

"CAP's grade structure is just fine for the internal audience.  But when people look at us from the outside, sometimes they get confused."

Is that what all the fuss is about?  I'd be happy to discuss it.  I just want to make sure I understand what you want to talk about.

(And maybe we should not be doing it in a Photoshop thread.)

[FW]

^ Is it a slow news day in CA...? 

[PHall]

^ Is it a slow news day in CA...? 

Why yes it is and kinda like it that way!

[JeffDG]

SMWOG do command squadrons.

"Do" implies "Present" tense.

At present I show:
436 units commanded by Majors
396 commanded by Captains
294 commanded by Lt Cols
137 commanded by 1st Lts
67 commanded by Cols
24 commanded by 2nd Lts
2 commanded by MSgts
1 each commanded by Maj Gen and Brig Gen

So, at present, there are no SMWOG's in command of units, making your statement that SMWOGs "do command squadrons" as demonstrably false.

[Storm Chaser]

2 commanded by MSgts

I thought NCOs were not allowed to be commanders. Interesting.

All squadron commanders may be advanced up to 1st Lt concurrent with their appointment. And while not automatic nor required, it's hard to imagine a member who's good enough to be a squadron commander, but not good enough to be a 1st Lt. Then again, some members do turn down promotions, so that could explain why some members may hold lesser grades and the potential for a SMWOG to command a squadron.

[Eclipse]

So, at present, there are no SMWOG's in command of units, making your statement that SMWOGs "do command squadrons" as demonstrably false.

At the time I made that statement, there were two on record, making that statement demonstrably true.

2 commanded by MSgts

This despite it being literally prohibited by regulation, which speaks volumes about how "important"
the idea of CAP NCOs staying our of command when confronted with the reality of "no one else wants the job".

You can't have it both ways from the academic perspective and expect to have any credibility in the conversation.

[JeffDG]

So, at present, there are no SMWOG's in command of units, making your statement that SMWOGs "do command squadrons" as demonstrably false.

At the time I made that statement, there were two on record, making that statement demonstrably true.

You made that statement earlier today, and your assertion demonstrates nothing.

[etodd]

I've gone through two bags of popcorn tonight while reading this thread and trying to make any sense of it. Will a third bag help?

Maybe a sidetrack will help. If a SMWOG commands a unit, what type of uniform should he wear?  ROTFL

[Eclipse]

So, at present, there are no SMWOG's in command of units, making your statement that SMWOGs "do command squadrons" as demonstrably false.

At the time I made that statement, there were two on record, making that statement demonstrably true.

You made that statement earlier today, and your assertion demonstrates nothing.

By all means, let's not sidetrack the narrative by citing facts.

The actual statement I made...

As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.

...was 12 days ago, and while it was factually accurate as of that date, doesn't actually say when I checked, only the
last time I looked, which could have been last year.

The discussions today are in reference to that assertion, 12 days ago.

Now, by all means, do some math and tell me it was only 11.5 days ago because you're in a different time zone,
or it was actually 13 days ago, because a "day" is really 24.0000005473 hours due to the slowing of the earth's rotation,
therefore the whole point is invalid and it "never happened".

None of the above will change the fact that CAP currently has Field Grade Officers reporting to Company Grade officers,
at least one General reporting to a Major, officers (presumably) reporting to NCO commanders in violation of the regulations, and SMWOG can and do
command squadrons (though not, apparently today), and introducing the idea of job segregation and manning tables for NCOs, absent any other wholesale fix,
is just going to break that worse.

Can I pick out a specific time when a SMWOG commanded a General.  No.  So stipulated, as long as the court will further stipulate the possibility,
which was the point to begin with.  Had I said "2d Lts command Lt Colonels" the point would be no more or less valid, but I guarantee it's out there today.

At least the bus wouldn't have stopped to point out that while the "tires are round, and could be round, they aren't round in the way you say there are".
(That still makes them round, for clarification).

But do Field Grade Officers regularly report to, and are commanded by, Company grade officers (or lower). Darn Skippy.  I've personally been in that
situation from both sides,  it is so common as to be unremarkable in context, we all know that, but the optics are terrible from an external perspective.

So by all means, pick apart the semantics, and pretend minutia like this negates the broader point, that's always a means to a satisfying discussion.

[JeffDG]

By all means, let's not sidetrack the narrative by citing facts.

Here:


So, let me sum up:

Yesterday you said it was a fact that SMWOG's command squadrons.
I pulled the data as of yesterday
No SMWOGs command squadrons
Thus, I have demonstrated that your statement of fact was false.

That's what "demonstrably false" means.

[JeffDG]

So by all means, pick apart the semantics, and pretend minutia like this negates the broader point, that's always a means to a satisfying discussion.

It's not possible to have a "satisfying discussion" with someone who, even when presented with direct evidence that they are wrong about something, continues to argue that they were not, in fact, wrong.

You seem to lack the ability to admit error.  I feel pity for you.

[Storm Chaser]

I got the point. Last he checked, that statement was true. It no longer is. Now we have 2d Lts and MSgts commanding squadrons (unless that changed recently; I haven't checked this morning). The general point is the same. Members with lesser grades can and do command squadrons with members of higher grades. That is a fact. Can we move on now?

[vorteks]

So by all means, pick apart the semantics, and pretend minutia like this negates the broader point, that's always a means to a satisfying discussion.

It's not possible to have a "satisfying discussion" with someone who, even when presented with direct evidence that they are wrong about something, continues to argue that they were not, in fact, wrong.

You seem to lack the ability to admit error.  I feel pity for you.

You seem to lack the ability to see the larger picture. Or you're just trying to be difficult. Your latest contributions to the thread are irrelevant and deliberately ignore the larger point being effectively made by Eclipse.

This thread has veered way off topic and should be locked at this point.

[RogueLeader]

Again, the point of this thread, I should know as I started this, was to get a bit of technical help to go along with a proposal to help improve the CAP Officer Professional Development Program, and to help differential the differences between what I see are beneficial training differences between CAP Officer and CAP Enlisted grade structures.

That technical help has been given, for which much thanks and appreciation.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not opposed to the idea of a program in which most members start out as airmen and later become NCOs. I would also be fine with increasing the requirements to becoming a CAP officer and/or limiting officer grades to command and leadership positions. The challenge, as I see it, is that it would take a long time to transition to an organization where most members are "enlisted" instead of officers. It would also take a complete revamp of our PD program, promotion system, and organizational structure. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the organization and membership are ready for those drastic changes.

[FW]

^ Sounds fine.  Remember, though, it has taken years just to rewrite our current regulations.  It may be sometime in the next century, we will be able to see a complete rewrite of our entire membership structure, and PD program...