I am writing today to broach the question of what is required in CAP to get promoted in the senior Program.
I personally don't find the CAP promotion system to be very well monitored by higher commanders. I am currently a Major and if I never get LTCol that will not hinder my contributions to ES, Cadet Program or Senior Program.
What I have observed is that the system is poorly tracked in several ways:
1. Many senior members do not actually do a specialty track they just get signed off on one by a CC. - Possible solution would be to put the Specialty track req on-line to be signed off like ES tracking who signed off each step prior to the CC approval.
2. SLS and CLC are getting harder to come by. two of the three wings I have been in put a very tight hold on how many SLS and CLC are taught and by who. I find this a little restrictive since most of the program is a canned Power point presentation. - I don't have a solution to this right now.
3. What members need to do to get an endorsement from commanders varies greatly. I have personally seen applications for Major and LtCol shot down by Group commanders and killed without ever getting to Wing or Region. The book I read said that commanders could endorse yea or nay but the boards at the appropriate level get to make the final call. Does anybody look for that? Do the boards ever ask why a middle commander says no? With the advent of the on-line request, I am finding commanders insisting on the paper copy to go with it with additional materials. So much for paperless process.. - Think that Commanders need to communicate the vision on how promotions are going to work in their wing/region and then have PD at wing/region look at if it is being followed. My wing announced 1 commander ago that if you wanted Maj you had to be on Group staff and if you wanted LT Col you had to be on Wing Staff. I guess that line about supplements to these regulations need to be approved by National is to easily ignored.
4. PD linked to other areas. I agree with the string of comments though cap talk that a members progression through PD should be linked to how much of other activities they are able to do. I have members in my wing who are 15 year 1LTs who are ICs and Check pilots etc. I hear that ECI 13 is to difficult to manage (and it is a poor method) but the organization looks like a joke to the outside when they see LTCols running around working for 1LTs. I think that we should take a look at saying that advanced flight training, Advanced ES quals, National activity slots should be linked to PD progression. I also realize that there are members who are in Phase IV who are still 1LTs for other reasons, but are they valid reasons and if they are not being promoted for cause why reward them with perks.
5. Requirements - I have noticed a trend of additional courses from national (UCC and TLC) and I applaud them. I also applaud the moving of the Safety ECI to the national test system. I find that the more training you can put out there that members can get to will show you which members want to train. If you herd the members into a room for SLS how many wanted to be there. I would be in-favor of having 3or 4 choices of training that you need to do 1 or 2 of to progress that way they have options and can choose. For instance On-line training for NTaps, ICS-adv training, Radio Propagation over terrain and Medial/Safety concerns for ES Operations. You must complete 1 of 4 for technician in ES, 2 of 4 for Senior and 3 of 4 For master. The training would be on-line with a test and standardized. Ensuring that members with a specialty have the same training.
Just some thoughts to Chew around and see what the membership in general thinks about it.
Thanks and I look forward to reading your replies.
V/R
LT J.
I had a long, point by point on this, but its not necessary, suffice to say that while your issues are frustrating, they are not necessarily the case in every state, my wing did 4 SLS/CLC weekends last year, they are not rocket science, and if you present a plan and qualified staff, I don't see why any wing would be reluctant to allow more to be schedule (YMMV, obviously).
As to situations where people are being pencil-whipped, or a state is adding objective criteria for promotion against regulations, there's a complaint process for that kind of thing, but yo have to be someone with standing to file the complaint and you have to be able to back it up with evidence, etc.
My Region has raised the bar on field-grade and special appointment promotions, and I basically agree with their sentiment. The result will be more 1st Lt's and less Lt. Col's, more like the active services. If you accept command responsibility and have upward mobility, you'll progress farther and faster than a worker bee doing a good job locally. That's the way its supposed to work, anyway.
And since we do not connect command authority to grade, it doesn't matter that there are 1st Lt's acting as IC's over Lt. Cols. When we interact wth other services, that situation is anecdotally interesting and explained in a second and we all move on.
We only lose credibility when that IC (or anyone else) can't perform their duty as required, otherwise, I can assure you no one outside CAP really cares what's on our collar.
Your Number 4 is a mute point. I can produce a First LT that has 10 more years in the program and is way better at being an IC than many Lt Col's that joined CAP with special appointments and promotions, and SUCKS at being an IC.
If we want to change anything, lets get rid of special appointments and promotions!!
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 02, 2008, 07:22:21 PM
If we want to change anything, lets get rid of special appointments and promotions!!
I called NHQ and needed some info about special appointments when I was a CC. The first thing they told me was when I did the writeup I needed to show why this individual "walked on water" and deserved it.
Quote from: NavLT on July 02, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
I hear that ECI 13 is to difficult to manage (and it is a poor method) but the organization looks like a joke to the outside when they see LTCols running around working for 1LTs.
The easy and fast fix to that problem is make the out-ranked ICs wear polo shirts and grey slacks. ;D
AFIADL 13 is not that hard - just takes some time and dedication. If your unit is having a problem getting people enrolled, then it is a unit level problem, not a problem with the program.
Quote from: NavLT on July 02, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
I think that we should take a look at saying that advanced flight training, Advanced ES quals, National activity slots should be linked to PD progression.
I can support that as an addition to the PD progression - not as a replacement for current PD requirements. I question the advanced flight training as I see it only applying to pilots - not the rest of the ES people.
Quote from: NavLT on July 02, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
I also realize that there are members who are in Phase IV who are still 1LTs for other reasons, but are they valid reasons and if they are not being promoted for cause why reward them with perks.
I don't know how a 1st Lt can be Level IV unless they declined promotion for some reason. A CAP NCO can be a Level V so I guess a 1st Lt could be. Professional Development levels are not tied to promotions - however, duty performance promotions are tied to PD.
You can either have a promotion system that will give you squadrons where the highest ranking person is the commander or you can have a promotion system based on ES requirements where the IC is always the highest ranking person (unless the Wing CC is around, of course), but you can have some variant of the current system where you probably won't have the highest ranking person be the squadron commander or the IC.
With any of those systems someone will say its a problem to have a higher ranking person "working" for a lower ranking person in one situation or the other when in practice it makes very little difference.
Personally, I favor an ES-based rank system, but judging from past discussions, I'm in a minority on that.
So RiverAux, your saying that a member in Cadet Programs would never be promoted, only those in ES??
There is a whole thread on it somewhere. Like I said, none of the alternatives will make everybody happy.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2008, 10:29:32 PM
You can either have a promotion system that will give you squadrons where the highest ranking person is the commander or you can have a promotion system based on ES requirements where the IC is always the highest ranking person (unless the Wing CC is around, of course), but you can have some variant of the current system where you probably won't have the highest ranking person be the squadron commander or the IC.
With any of those systems someone will say its a problem to have a higher ranking person "working" for a lower ranking person in one situation or the other when in practice it makes very little difference.
Personally, I favor an ES-based rank system, but judging from past discussions, I'm in a minority on that.
Please remember there are Three Congressionally Mandated Programs for CAP. To base Promotions on ES (operations), means there has to be promotions guidelines for AE and CP as well.
Which means more confusion and red tape just to get the right to promote. (Reference - Uniforms)
Personally I am all in favor of Professional Development Promotions. Each Level of completion means a promotion. Much the same way it is now. I would even stay with special promotions for professional's such as Dr's & Lawyers and such.
There is always the idea that the expertise, and experience that field grade officers develop should be used for greater program development, and support by moving those officers to the group and wing level.
Unfortunately that was tried, and whole heartedly rejected
Quote from: Short Field on July 02, 2008, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: NavLT on July 02, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
I also realize that there are members who are in Phase IV who are still 1LTs for other reasons, but are they valid reasons and if they are not being promoted for cause why reward them with perks.
I don't know how a 1st Lt can be Level IV unless they declined promotion for some reason. A CAP NCO can be a Level V so I guess a 1st Lt could be. Professional Development levels are not tied to promotions - however, duty performance promotions are tied to PD.
If the timing is right and the right classes are scheduled, it can happen. I am a 1st Lt and I have my Level III. I am working on my Level IV now. If everything falls into place right and I take RSC next summer, I will get my Level IV about the same time as I'm eligible for Capt.
There are no grade restrictions for attaining the PD levels until you reach Level V, where you have to be a Major to take NSC.
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 02, 2008, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: NavLT on July 02, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
I also realize that there are members who are in Phase IV who are still 1LTs for other reasons, but are they valid reasons and if they are not being promoted for cause why reward them with perks.
I don't know how a 1st Lt can be Level IV unless they declined promotion for some reason. A CAP NCO can be a Level V so I guess a 1st Lt could be. Professional Development levels are not tied to promotions - however, duty performance promotions are tied to PD.
If the timing is right and the right classes are scheduled, it can happen. I am a 1st Lt and I have my Level III. I am working on my Level IV now. If everything falls into place right and I take RSC next summer, I will get my Level IV about the same time as I'm eligible for Capt.
There are no grade restrictions for attaining the PD levels until you reach Level V, where you have to be a Major to take NSC.
You beat me to it. I too am a 1LT that at this point only needs RSC to complete my Level IV. It really does boil down to the initiative of the members. Those of us that are in the trenches every day / week working with the cadets or missions if you are ES, tend to study, attend class, and dare I say "check boxes" faster than your average flying club mentality member. As always YMMV.
QuotePlease remember there are Three Congressionally Mandated Programs for CAP. To base Promotions on ES (operations), means there has to be promotions guidelines for AE and CP as well.
No, not really...at least under my proposal. Thats one of the reasons many people here didn't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't work. But, then again, it is only a few people that are hung up on whether or not it is really critical that the highest ranking always be in charge in any phase of CAP.
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 11:40:23 AM
If the timing is right and the right classes are scheduled, it can happen. I am a 1st Lt and I have my Level III. I am working on my Level IV now. If everything falls into place right and I take RSC next summer, I will get my Level IV about the same time as I'm eligible for Capt. There are no grade restrictions for attaining the PD levels until you reach Level V, where you have to be a Major to take NSC.
I completed RSC this spring at Nellis AFB NV and, as you might expect, we had a pile of majors completing their Level IV requirements along with several captains - and one 2nd lieutenant. No one even raised an eyebrow.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 03, 2008, 11:39:05 AM
There is always the idea that the expertise, and experience that field grade officers develop should be used for greater program development, and support by moving those officers to the group and wing level.
The squadron is the major operational unit of CAP. To be constantly draining expertise and experience out of the squadron to higher headquarters does not benefit the squadron at all. And at what point does the group and wing become bloated with experienced field graders.
Quote from: Short Field on July 03, 2008, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 03, 2008, 11:39:05 AM
There is always the idea that the expertise, and experience that field grade officers develop should be used for greater program development, and support by moving those officers to the group and wing level.
The squadron is the major operational unit of CAP. To be constantly draining expertise and experience out of the squadron to higher headquarters does not benefit the squadron at all. And at what point does the group and wing become bloated with experienced field graders.
The only way this model works is the same up and/or out paradigm that other services use. A fixed length of service, requirements for participation and progression, etc.
Not practical in a volunteer environment where Wing HQ may be 500 miles away, and the member is only interested in comms, etc.
So that member remains a 1Lt (or here is where the NCO grades come back in) and that's just that.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2008, 05:10:16 PM
Quote from: Short Field on July 03, 2008, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 03, 2008, 11:39:05 AM
There is always the idea that the expertise, and experience that field grade officers develop should be used for greater program development, and support by moving those officers to the group and wing level.
The squadron is the major operational unit of CAP. To be constantly draining expertise and experience out of the squadron to higher headquarters does not benefit the squadron at all. And at what point does the group and wing become bloated with experienced field graders.
The only way this model works is the same up and/or out paradigm that other services use. A fixed length of service, requirements for participation and progression, etc.
Not practical in a volunteer environment where Wing HQ may be 500 miles away, and the member is only interested in comms, etc.
So that member remains a 1Lt (or here is where the NCO grades come back in) and that's just that.
But then that does not fix the problem of having your local IC (a meer LT) commanding a Lt Col from wing who came down for the search doing comms duty.
Focusing on the local missiond does not mean you have no insight or understanding of the bigger picture. And being on Wing Staff does not necessarilly mean you are all that either.
As discussed many times before.....there is no easy fix for this perceived problem.
^ We'd need to couple ES skill with grade, or force people to specialize more. i.e. Commanders would not be operational, etc.
In the real world, base commanders, etc., are not (usually) in the field running operations, that's for the younger, stronger "kids", and the administrivia is left to the older, wiser, management types.
Even if we accept the above as a workable reboot of CAP, we don't have the people to staff things. At most activities I go to, its the commanders a staff who are the only ones that show up with any regularity.
Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.
For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization. He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.
This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 05:51:29 PM
Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.
For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization. He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.
This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.
That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have. You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.
You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2008, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 05:51:29 PM
Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.
For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization. He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.
This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.
That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have. You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.
You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.
Or, you make rank temporary and tied to position. Then "up or out" becomes "take a break and let someone else wear the bars for a while."
The big question remains - why have rank at all?
If the answer is "to designate members with authority and responsiblity," you move towards one kind of system.
If the answer is "as an award to members for completingsome training and service" then you move towards our current system.
Quote from: Dragoon on July 04, 2008, 03:07:48 PM
The big question remains - why have rank at all?
If the answer is "to designate members with authority and responsibility," you move towards one kind of system.
If the answer is "as an award to members for completing some training and service" then you move towards our current system.
That's the Shakespearean question, always has been.
However, even though we don't actually hold people to the idea, even today, decorations are supposed to be for past service, and promotion is supposed to be acceptance of additional responsibility. Most member view them as one and the same, and our current staffing levels and circular career paths don't do anything to negate that.
I'd be in favor of "up and out", with limitations on service for all. The military model on this creates a finite time period to accomplish whatever you intend to accomplish, it also allows for closure and an endpoint without being a "quitter". It would also force the whole cycle to better planning, more recruiting, and some acceptance of continuity.
I also realize that forcing your most experienced members out of a volunteer organization is a good way to kill it.
If one is actually following the senior member professional development program and not sidestepping it with one of the special appointments/promotions, rank is loosely tied with increasing responsibility within the organization. It comes about through the command or staff duty requirements and through advancement in the specialty track system. Its certainly not a perfect fit but it is there.
Now, I don't disagree with the fact that it is sort of backward in that you get the rank after you've demonstrated that you can perform with the increased responsibility which is sort of the opposite of how it works in the real world, but I don't think it is that critical of a difference.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2008, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 05:51:29 PM
Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.
For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization. He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.
This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.
That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have. You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.
You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.
Sounds nice on paper...but why force out a perfectly good Lt Col who can't work at wing anymore....just because you can't have Lt Cols at the squadron?
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2008, 06:34:07 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2008, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 05:51:29 PM
Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.
For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization. He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.
This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.
That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have. You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.
You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.
Sounds nice on paper...but why force out a perfectly good Lt Col who can't work at wing anymore....just because you can't have Lt Cols at the squadron?
Exactly. Today's Wing Vice Commander is tomorrow's squadron ES officer. And after his kids get a little older, he might be tomorrows Wing Operations officer. If we kick him out early, we'll never know.
I've seen a lot of hard charging members back off during critical family or work years, and them come charging back as they near retirement and have the time to really kick CAP butt.
That's why I favor temporary grade - it motivates folks to keep working hard (in order to keep the grade), but gives them an out if they can't keep working hard (hand over the oak leaves for a while and take an easy job).
And then we could add in some ego-stroking clause like "you may wear the highest grade earned at CAP social functions and military balls", so now and then you can strut your former oak leaves in all their glory.
But really, the current system is ALL ego stroking - and that ain't good.
Quote from: davedove on July 03, 2008, 11:40:23 AM
[There are no grade restrictions for attaining the PD levels until you reach Level V, where you have to be a Major to take NSC.
Sorry, I was thinking 18 monts to 1st Lt, not 3 yrs to Capt. FYI, I completed Level IV 27 months after I joined CAP.
I just wanted to take a minute to thank everyone for their opinion.
What I often find is that people never challenge the why do we do it that way at all and I think Cap Talk encourages constant evaluation.
I also find that working groups/comittees etc are chosen by civilian and military all the time to review process and compare it to vision and we fail to do it enough in CAP.
Several posters thought I found no merit in any of our systems at all, far from it. I merely bring out the quesion of if they are a highly motivate, highly qualified 1LT Incident commander then our system obviously does not reward Grade to those skills and attributes. I do not recommend promotion of every commander to Col and demotion of every col to 1LT when not in command. Likewise I don't advocate promoting every team leader to Major. I just think the PD system is currently linked to some old skill set hurdles and may need some review. They only recently started waiving some PD items for progression in the cadet program, perhaps they could find a similar method for AE, and ES.
NavLT