Flight Officer Advanced Promotions

[Major Carrales]

Flight Officers, in my experience in my area, are often treated poorly (even less than Cadet Officers) or with the usual "what the heck are you supposed to be?" attitude.  This was the case with a dear friend of mine, of who had served in CAP as a cadet for a considerable time (years enough to Mitchell) and treated like a schmuck by a 2d Lt who had been in CAP 9 months.

That was my experience with some members as I went through the FO grades. However, once I turned 21 and went from SFO to insta-Captain, it shut them up in short order 

Yes, but I have a fundamental problem with a whole group of CAP members (adults and likely the best trained...in terms of CAP Knowledge and Objectives...group of new SENIOR MEMBERS) having to be treated like "second class citizen" types and people accepting it as a common practice.

Oh I fully concur. I hated having the 7-months-in 2d Lt talk down to me like I didn't know what I was doing, when I was wearing 13 ribbons, a set of wings and a GTL badge.

But, I just saluted and executed. Nothing else I could really do. Was it a bit demoralizing? Absolutely. But the people who gave me my orders were people who were not only familiar with my grade structure (because I oriented them to it), but were familiar with myself personally and had trust in me. The only people I really ever had problems with were the new people, the people on power trips, and those who had chronic cranial/rectal inversions.

Not every CAP Officer is like me, and you.  I will not allow FLIGHT OFFICERS to be marginalized.

I say, just make them brevet 2d Lts with the possibility of advanced promotion when they turn 21.  Get rid of these "grey areas."  As I said, we should be celebrating these CAP members...not marginalizing them.

[Major Carrales]

I never had any problems with being treated poorly as a TFO, but I was well established as a Cadet Officer and had been treated as [darn] close to a Senior Member as anyone else I knew.

That was a testiment to your service to CAP.  But what if you had moved to my Area? 

We should be celebrating our people that are FLIGHT OFFICERS because of thier training and dedication to CAP.  They have used the CADET PROGRAM as "CAPROTC."  We occasionally have these discussions about why CADETS don't transfer over to SENIOR...hummm, I think I have a new argument for the debate.

Well and you also have the fact that not every FO was once a CAP Cadet.

Had I moved to your area, I would not have been afraid to respectfully assert my knowledge and skills in my AOR. Being treated poorly as a FO is a reflection on the people treating FO's poorly, but at some point, you have to stand up and do something about it.

Believe me, "standing up" to an IC at a mission is likely lead to you "standing up" in the line to join the USCGAux as an ex-CAP member.  There is not a real way to stand up to such a person at a mission without conduct unbecoming a CAP Officer.  We have to change the culture or get rid of the titles of Flight Officer altogether.

[SJFedor]

I never had any problems with being treated poorly as a TFO, but I was well established as a Cadet Officer and had been treated as [darn] close to a Senior Member as anyone else I knew.

That was a testiment to your service to CAP.  But what if you had moved to my Area? 

We should be celebrating our people that are FLIGHT OFFICERS because of thier training and dedication to CAP.  They have used the CADET PROGRAM as "CAPROTC."  We occasionally have these discussions about why CADETS don't transfer over to SENIOR...hummm, I think I have a new argument for the debate.

Well and you also have the fact that not every FO was once a CAP Cadet.

Had I moved to your area, I would not have been afraid to respectfully assert my knowledge and skills in my AOR. Being treated poorly as a FO is a reflection on the people treating FO's poorly, but at some point, you have to stand up and do something about it.

Believe me, "standing up" to an IC at a mission is likely lead to you "standing up" in the line to join the USCGAux as an ex-CAP member.  There is not a real way to stand up to such a person at a mission without conduct unbecoming a CAP Officer.  We have to change the culture or get rid of the titles of Flight Officer altogether.

Most IC's i've encountered care less about the grade on your shoulder and more about what's on your 101.

[Major Carrales]

I never had any problems with being treated poorly as a TFO, but I was well established as a Cadet Officer and had been treated as [darn] close to a Senior Member as anyone else I knew.

That was a testiment to your service to CAP.  But what if you had moved to my Area? 

We should be celebrating our people that are FLIGHT OFFICERS because of thier training and dedication to CAP.  They have used the CADET PROGRAM as "CAPROTC."  We occasionally have these discussions about why CADETS don't transfer over to SENIOR...hummm, I think I have a new argument for the debate.

Well and you also have the fact that not every FO was once a CAP Cadet.

Had I moved to your area, I would not have been afraid to respectfully assert my knowledge and skills in my AOR. Being treated poorly as a FO is a reflection on the people treating FO's poorly, but at some point, you have to stand up and do something about it.

Believe me, "standing up" to an IC at a mission is likely lead to you "standing up" in the line to join the USCGAux as an ex-CAP member.  There is not a real way to stand up to such a person at a mission without conduct unbecoming a CAP Officer.  We have to change the culture or get rid of the titles of Flight Officer altogether.

Most IC's i've encountered care less about the grade on your shoulder and more about what's on your 101.

We can only hope so.

[Hawk200]

IIRC the Air Force did not want 18 year olds as CAP Officers...

I find that idea to be balderdash.  18 year olds, for the purpose of CAP, are adults.  I believe that they should become 2d Lts...applying USAF standards to CAP this occasion is without logical standing.

They don't want 18 year old Lts, ridiculous.  Give us Congressional Commissions as Auxiliarists and I might subscribe to the idea...but as it stands now I think it is ridiculous since CAP is a totally different animal that the USAF.

According to AFI's 36-2011 and 36-2013, an individual must be at least 17 to enlist. The commisioning programs are a minumum of 4 years. By Air Force reasoning, a person must be a minimum of 21 to even achieve a commision.

Anyone normally below that age would be a commisioning program cadet, not an officer, and not eligible to wield the authority of a commision.

Keep in mind that the even though society considers an 18 year old adult, the military requires such an adult to complete additional training. Just becoming an adult does not entitle them to something that someone who had enlisted is not.

Flight officer insignia is comparable to commisioning program insignia. Probably best to maintain the similarities.

[Major Carrales]

IIRC the Air Force did not want 18 year olds as CAP Officers...

I find that idea to be balderdash.  18 year olds, for the purpose of CAP, are adults.  I believe that they should become 2d Lts...applying USAF standards to CAP this occasion is without logical standing.

They don't want 18 year old Lts, ridiculous.  Give us Congressional Commissions as Auxiliarists and I might subscribe to the idea...but as it stands now I think it is ridiculous since CAP is a totally different animal that the USAF.

According to AFI's 36-2011 and 36-2013, an individual must be at least 17 to enlist. The commisioning programs are a minumum of 4 years. By Air Force reasoning, a person must be a minimum of 21 to even achieve a commision.

Anyone normally below that age would be a commisioning program cadet, not an officer, and not eligible to wield the authority of a commision.

Keep in mind that the even though society considers an 18 year old adult, the military requires such an adult to complete additional training. Just becoming an adult does not entitle them to something that someone who had enlisted is not.

Flight officer insignia is comparable to commisioning program insignia. Probably best to maintain the similarities.

Hawk, I cannot accept that.  The rules and regulations that govern the USAF do not govern us per se.  Yes, I know there is a practice to take a look at USAF instructions when CAP regs are ambiguous...however, those REGS have little standing in CAP...save those that have been CAP-i-fided like the Drill and Ceremonies manual.

I am against the practice for two reasons...

1) A SENIOR MEMBER's Level I is not equal to USAF Officer Training and the idea of not allowing a member to have equal standing because they do not conform to some notion that works in the USAF because of the situations you mention is disingenuous.

2) Flight Officers are in some cases treated as "second class citizenry" due to what amounts to ignorance (in the true definition of the term) of CAP Officers.

Fix these issues to where they can be reconciled in my mind with something more, or I cannot let these opinions on Flight Officer grade go.   

I'm off to bed...I will look forward to the replies and discussion tomorrow.

[Hawk200]

Flight Officers, in my experience in my area, are often treated poorly (even less than Cadet Officers) or with the usual "what the heck are you supposed to be?" attitude.  This was the case with a dear friend of mine, of who had served in CAP as a cadet for a considerable time (years enough to Mitchell) and treated like a schmuck by a 2d Lt who had been in CAP 9 months.

That was my experience with some members as I went through the FO grades. However, once I turned 21 and went from SFO to insta-Captain, it shut them up in short order 

Yes, but I have a fundamental problem with a whole group of CAP members (adults and likely the best trained...in terms of CAP Knowledge and Objectives...group of new SENIOR MEMBERS) having to be treated like "second class citizen" types and people accepting it as a common practice.

To be blunt, anyone accepting that behaviour is part of the problem. Any ranking senior should be dealing with that. It is inherently wrong to adjust a rank bracket because they allow injustice to take place.

[Spike]

IIRC the Air Force did not want 18 year olds as CAP Officers...

I find that idea to be balderdash.  18 year olds, for the purpose of CAP, are adults.  I believe that they should become 2d Lts...applying USAF standards to CAP this occasion is without logical standing.

They don't want 18 year old Lts, ridiculous.  Give us Congressional Commissions as Auxiliarists and I might subscribe to the idea...but as it stands now I think it is ridiculous since CAP is a totally different animal that the USAF.

According to AFI's 36-2011 and 36-2013, an individual must be at least 17 to enlist. The commisioning programs are a minumum of 4 years. By Air Force reasoning, a person must be a minimum of 21 to even achieve a commision.

Anyone normally below that age would be a commisioning program cadet, not an officer, and not eligible to wield the authority of a commision.

Keep in mind that the even though society considers an 18 year old adult, the military requires such an adult to complete additional training. Just becoming an adult does not entitle them to something that someone who had enlisted is not.

Flight officer insignia is comparable to commisioning program insignia. Probably best to maintain the similarities.

Funny......OCS/OTS programs are not 4 years in length.  Direct Commissions are not 4 years in length.  I have met a 19 year old Lt in the AF......I know of a few 18 year old Warrant Officers in the Army, and I met a WW2 Sailor who was an Ensign at 18 also.  Then there is the "Early Commissioning Program" in Army ROTC.....2 years to a Reserve Commission.  So you can see 18, 19, 20 year old Lt's.

The  military absolutely considers an 18 year old an adult.  If they did not, then they would have "Juvenile" sentences in courts-martial cases.   

CAP is not the Air Force as many like to point out here! 

By the way...Commission has two "S's" in it.  Usually Capitalized as well.     

[Hawk200]

Then let me point out another reality. What do you think the behaviour of the majority of 18 year old lieutenants would be? Not the most becoming of an officer. If you want to point a common innappropriate practice, then you have to acknowledge the negatives as well. Both of which the Air Force would consider if we requested permission to appoint 18 year olds as lieutenants.

Basically, we're not going to win. The Air Force does control certain aspects of things in CAP, especially when it comes to their uniforms. We have to respect that.

[BrandonKea]

Basically, we're not going to win. The Air Force does control certain aspects of things in CAP, especially when it comes to their uniforms. We have to respect that.

+1

Now, as for Flight Officers being treated poorly, get out there and fix it people! Treat them how you'd want to be treated, and call people on it who don't.

[adamblank]

I think one way to break the "sub-officer" culture for the FOs is to make sure they have all of the same insignia and recognition as it seems the rest of the CAP corps has.  It can only add to the "Who is that?" mentality if they can't wear appropriate insignia.

[BrandonKea]

I think one way to break the "sub-officer" culture for the FOs is to make sure they have all of the same insignia and recognition as it seems the rest of the CAP corps has.  It can only add to the "Who is that?" mentality if they can't wear appropriate insignia.

Touche. Show me a cost-effective way to do it and I'll get behind it.

[Hawk200]

Funny......OCS/OTS programs are not 4 years in length.  Direct Commissions are not 4 years in length.  I have met a 19 year old Lt in the AF......I know of a few 18 year old Warrant Officers in the Army, and I met a WW2 Sailor who was an Ensign at 18 also.  Then there is the "Early Commissioning Program" in Army ROTC.....2 years to a Reserve Commission.  So you can see 18, 19, 20 year old Lt's.

You've met a 19 year old Air Force Lieutentant? I'd like that individual's name and a method in which I can contact them. I don't buy it.

Second, Army and Navy programs are completely irrelevant. Each branch sets it's own age requirements. Air Force requirements are specified in AFI's 36-2011 and 36-2013. You can argue all you wish, the Air Force doesn't care. Their regulations are the final word on the matter.

The  military absolutely considers an 18 year old an adult.  If they did not, then they would have "Juvenile" sentences in courts-martial cases.

I made no dispute of that. The point is irrelevant. Why did you even post it?

CAP is not the Air Force as many like to point out here!

But they control many aspects of our organization. You can argue with them all you want, it's pretty pointless.

By the way...Commission has two "S's" in it.  Usually Capitalized as well.

So, you dispute my statements because of typo? Flimsy argument. In twenty years of service, I've also never seen it stated that "commission" is required to be capitalized. Not certain why you would bother using it as point of debate.

[Hawk200]

Now, as for Flight Officers being treated poorly, get out there and fix it people! Treat them how you'd want to be treated, and call people on it who don't.

Agreed.

[ZigZag911]

Here's my solution: have everyone (and I mean everyone, except prior military) work from SM up through the FO grades....pretty much how the senior program worked WIWAC....would tkae 3 to 5 years to make 2 Lt (which should be minimum required earned grade for sqdn CC)...consequently we'd have people with some actual experience in CAP serving as commissioned officers and commanders.

[Gunner C]

I don't think that most of you get it.  FOs will always be treated as post-graduate cadets if all you have are FOs who are 18-21.  If FOs became a niche like they used to be in WW2 and in the 1950s (technical specialist officers) then you'd have something.  Have everyone start as a FO - just that simple.  If along the way someone decides that they would like to command, then they get a direct appointment to the grade appropriate to the level of command.  Then, if they want to keep it, then they serve at the appropriate staff level for the grade after that.

In the military WOs consider themselves pretty much the same grade (WOs don't exchange salutes, address each other by their first names, etc).  This tradition would be work well in CAP - seems to me that it would be a perfect fit:

• FOs would no longer be pseudo-officers and would be recognized along with their peers (right now they really don't have any peers)
• They'd have career progression through 5 grades just like the present officer system
• It would return the concept of "rank has authority" to CAP

Tell me where the downside is.

[Spike]

Then let me point out another reality. What do you think the behaviour of the majority of 18 year old lieutenants would be? Not the most becoming of an officer. If you want to point a common innappropriate practice, then you have to acknowledge the negatives as well. Both of which the Air Force would consider if we requested permission to appoint 18 year olds as lieutenants.

Don't make assumptions.  You may have been a poorly behaved 18 year old, most I know are not.  What negatives of having 18 year old CAP (CAP....CAP....CAP) 2nd Lt's do you have in mind??  Seriously......what do you have against an 18, 19 or 20 year old person??

Don't forget this is CAP!  It is by no means the Air Force.  Don't bring Air Force rules and regulations into the debate.....because frankly, some of us here are tired of having them thrown at us, when we legally don't have to follow the vast majority of them.  There are less than 8 actual Air Force documents we follow.  One being the Drill and Ceremonies Publication.  We follow many more DoD publications related to our Charter (mostly at the National Headquarters level) than we do Air Force specific publications.

You've met a 19 year old Air Force Lieutentant? I'd like that individual's name and a method in which I can contact them. I don't buy it.

Umm....Here it is for you in black and white

You are required to be a US citizen at least 18 years of age at the time of commissioning and not have reached age 34 by the initial selection board convening date. Navigator and pilot applicants must be commissioned and enter flying training before age 30. All other applicants should be commissioned before age 35.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/holmcenter/OTS/BOT/botapply.asp

The  military absolutely considers an 18 year old an adult.  If they did not, then they would have "Juvenile" sentences in courts-martial cases.

I made no dispute of that. The point is irrelevant. Why did you even post it?

Because you said.....

Keep in mind that the even though society considers an 18 year old adult, the military requires such an adult to complete additional training. Just becoming an adult does not entitle them to something that someone who had enlisted is not.

Which is the same as saying.... the military does not consider an 18 year old an adult unless they go through some type of "adult training". 

CAP is not the Air Force as many like to point out here!

But they control many aspects of our organization. You can argue with them all you want, it's pretty pointless.

Actually they control far less than you would believe.  Since 2000, they basically provide very little oversight and support than they did pre-2000.

By the way...Commission has two "S's" in it.  Usually Capitalized as well.

So, you dispute my statements because of typo? Flimsy argument. In twenty years of service, I've also never seen it stated that "commission" is required to be capitalized. Not certain why you would bother using it as point of debate.

I never once said I dispute or take counterpoint to your statements because of your misspelled words.  I was pointing out that you should press the spell check button.  Most 18 year old people can at least do that.  In fact, to say that I only make argument with you because of typos, means you have no basis for rebuttal and can not think of any better backings for your point of personal view.

/burned/

[Spike]

I think one way to break the "sub-officer" culture for the FOs is to make sure they have all of the same insignia and recognition as it seems the rest of the CAP corps has.  It can only add to the "Who is that?" mentality if they can't wear appropriate insignia.

Touche. Show me a cost-effective way to do it and I'll get behind it.

Let me think.......Vanguard makes changes to molds/ patterns daily.  I think cost effectiveness has no material relevance in the matter. 

[Hawk200]

Don't make assumptions.  You may have been a poorly behaved 18 year old, most I know are not.

You direct me to avoid assumptions, but you make one yourself. Not a very compelling to call someone on something and do it yourself. I was well behaved, the result of being the son of a cop.

What negatives of having 18 year old CAP (CAP....CAP....CAP) 2nd Lt's do you have in mind??

They've been pointed out.

Seriously......what do you have against an 18, 19 or 20 year old person??

Nothing at all. I am curious how you seem to have skipped the experience. I was on once, over half my life ago. The one thing I learned is that most people change more between the ages of 18 and about 22 than any other time. They're forming their own identities separate of the family they grew up with.

Don't forget this is CAP!  It is by no means the Air Force.  Don't bring Air Force rules and regulations into the debate.....because frankly, some of us here are tired of having them thrown at us, when we legally don't have to follow the vast majority of them.  There are less than 8 actual Air Force documents we follow.  One being the Drill and Ceremonies Publication.  We follow many more DoD publications related to our Charter (mostly at the National Headquarters level) than we do Air Force specific publications.

And something you apparently keep forgetting is that the Air Force still controls many aspects of CAP.

Second, the issue was concerning ages of personnel receiving commissions in the Air Force. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that point so that you can lambast me with your opinion on another subject.

You are required to be a US citizen at least 18 years of age at the time of commissioning and not have reached age 34 by the initial selection board convening date. Navigator and pilot applicants must be commissioned and enter flying training before age 30. All other applicants should be commissioned before age 35.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/holmcenter/OTS/BOT/botapply.asp[/quote]

And you point that out under a commissioning program requirement. Now show me multiple examples of teenage officers, and I'll consider a similar concept for our members.

Also, someone going through a commissioning program is going to have a very intense maturing experience. The 18 year old off the street is not. And before you ask again, I used to be that age. I now know full well that most people are not prepared for such responsbilities at that age.

Keep in mind that the even though society considers an 18 year old adult, the military requires such an adult to complete additional training. Just becoming an adult does not entitle them to something that someone who had enlisted is not.

Which is the same as saying.... the military does not consider an 18 year old an adult unless they go through some type of "adult training".

No, it is not the same, so your statement is a lie. My point, if you had read it instead of simply getting angry, was that the military requires an 18 year old adult to receive additional training to receive a commission. An 18 year cannot walk of the street and receive a commission immediately. It doesn't happen. Programs are required to be completed.

CAP is not the Air Force as many like to point out here!

But they control many aspects of our organization. You can argue with them all you want, it's pretty pointless.

Actually they control far less than you would believe.  Since 2000, they basically provide very little oversight and support than they did pre-2000.

By the way...Commission has two "S's" in it.  Usually Capitalized as well.

So, you dispute my statements because of typo? Flimsy argument. In twenty years of service, I've also never seen it stated that "commission" is required to be capitalized. Not certain why you would bother using it as point of debate.

I never once said I dispute or take counterpoint to your statements because of your misspelled words.  I was pointing out that you should press the spell check button.  Most 18 year old people can at least do that.  In fact, to say that I only make argument with you because of typos, means you have no basis for rebuttal and can not think of any better backings for your point of personal view.

/burned/

Burned? I addressed that as an endpoint after replying to yours. But I'm guessing you don't care to argue logically. You think I should simply accept your viewpoint, because it's yours, without respect to my own experiences or logic. You have distinctly failed to convince me.

[BrandonKea]

/burned/

Seriously? All your credibility just went right out the window.

This has gotten so far out of hand, just like every discussion-turned-argument about flight officers grades. If you want to fix something, write a proposal and send it through your chain of command. Complaining on CT is not going to fix anything.