CAP Talk

General Discussion => Membership => Topic started by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 11:26:08 AM

Title: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 11:26:08 AM
Good morning Everyone!!

I have been in CAP off and on since 1992. A former Cadet and Senior member. Now I have rejoined and I am now a TSGT in CAP. Just finished LVL 2 and continuing on to LVL 3. My question is:

Does anyone know how to be appointed/promoted to Squadron MSGT? according to the REGS as a TSGT I can be appointed to the rank and Title of MSGT. But the regs are very vague and E-Services does not seem to support NCO rank promotions.

Any help on this will be appreciated.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: catrulz on March 09, 2015, 11:49:52 AM
Good morning Everyone!!

I have been in CAP off and on since 1992. A former Cadet and Senior member. Now I have rejoined and I am now a TSGT in CAP. Just finished LVL 2 and continuing on to LVL 3. My question is:

Does anyone know how to be appointed/promoted to Squadron MSGT? according to the REGS as a TSGT I can be appointed to the rank and Title of MSGT. But the regs are very vague and E-Services does not seem to support NCO rank promotions.

Any help on this will be appreciated.

CAPR 35-5 - Para 6-3  Must complete level 3, and have 24 months TIG as TSgt.  Would be submitted on a CAPF 2, and requires Wing Commander approval.   Figure 1 on page 6 shows the promoting authority for each grade.

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 06:30:23 PM
Thanks for the response!

That I know but there is a section where being a TSGT I can be appointed up one grade to fill the slot as Squadron MSGT.

Quote
(2) If a vacancy exists, the member selected for that position will be promoted to the
rank commensurate with that position. Under no circumstances will a member be promoted
more than one grade to fulfill a vacant position (e.g. a CAP SSgt will not be promoted to CAP
MSgt for the purpose of filling a vacancy).

Actually TIG for NCO is different. I skipped SM and was promoted straight to SSGT as that was my equivalent rank. so 6 months as SSGT and 1 yr as TSGT. Because this states:

Quote
- Tenure for MSgt is 2 years; tenure for SMSgt is 3 years.

Quote
Promotion to Minimum Skill Level Time-in-Grade

 SSgt Level I 6 Months (SM)
TSgt (Level II) 12 Months
MSgt (Level III) 24 Months
SMSgt Level IV 36 Months
CMSgt Level V 48 Months

This is also interesting:

Quote
Figure 7. Professional Development Skill Level and Time-in-Grade Requirements for NCO
Promotions (Note: See CAPR 50-17 for minimum skill levels in the PD program.)

What is minimum requirements for level 2 and 3? vs completing Level 2 and 3?

Thanks for any help!!

I wish the regs for this was easier and more understandable.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NCRblues on March 09, 2015, 06:40:30 PM
Ok, I'll ask it.

What position does this "squadron MSGT" hold that is so important we need to bump someone up a grade?

To date, no one has ever explained what these squadron, group or wing NCO's will doing other than "being important and must have".

Why are we in such a rush to cram NCO's Into units that have made it fine without them?

I guess I'm confused.

(P.S. For those keeping track, I took 6 months off from cap. I paid my dues today and I am a member again. Not sure how I feel yet, but felt something was missing in life, so I am 60$ lighter.)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 06:47:52 PM
from what I understand its a permanent position that I guess is to help stabilize the squadron as Commanders come and go a Squadron MSGT would keep order and be an adviser to the Commander.

As for the rest of your question, so is everybody else as to who does what and why!! I am trying to figure that out myself. Someone from National needs to pass on info as to how this whole thing is going to work.

As for me, I am doing this because its new and I was NCO in the Navy and want to see how far I can go with CAP!!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 07:23:47 PM
Ok, I'll ask it.

What position does this "squadron MSGT" hold that is so important we need to bump someone up a grade?

To date, no one has ever explained what these squadron, group or wing NCO's will doing other than "being important and must have".

Why are we in such a rush to cram NCO's Into units that have made it fine without them?

I guess I'm confused.

(P.S. For those keeping track, I took 6 months off from cap. I paid my dues today and I am a member again. Not sure how I feel yet, but felt something was missing in life, so I am 60$ lighter.)
No one is in any rush.   The promotable NCO positions are not a must have.   We understand you are confused.....we are still working on the job discriptions and duty positions.  Please be patiant.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NCRblues on March 09, 2015, 07:37:10 PM
from what I understand its a permanent position that I guess is to help stabilize the squadron as Commanders come and go a Squadron MSGT would keep order and be an adviser to the Commander.

As for the rest of your question, so is everybody else as to who does what and why!! I am trying to figure that out myself. Someone from National needs to pass on info as to how this whole thing is going to work.

As for me, I am doing this because its new and I was NCO in the Navy and want to see how far I can go with CAP!!

I am not trying to be rude, but the following may come across as such.

Keep order? You and me both know this is at best a joke, at worst an insult to the hard working volunteer senior and cadet members. Units have done just fine without an "NCO enforcer" for years and years and years.

Let me ask you a question, as one former NCO to another. Every single person in  that unit "out ranks" you. The newest 2nd LT in fresh off of level one, if we are now saying grade matters (which IMHO that is what NHQ is saying) let alone those 50 year light birds. So, why suddenly do we NEED an NCO in each unit? There is no enlisted corps, no airman to supervise, no one to be an NCO to.

Every veteran and current service member knows that those senior NCO's on active duty gain and hold respect because they have to. They have to be good at what they do, but in cap, NCO's are just checking the boxes like everyone else. Am I, as a field grade officer now supposed to need an E-8 or E-9 by my side at all times? Have I lost the ability to be (insert duty title here) because I don't have someone in stripes next to me? Am I expected to give a CAP E-9 who has no prior service and only put on stripes in CAP the same respect I give that 30 year AF, USA, USMC,USN E-9?

I am not sure how this is going to work out... I see many issues but no answers.

Not judging any one person, just don't understand the direction that CAP NHQ is taking.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 07:40:50 PM
Got to have the NCOs in place...before you on board the airman.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 07:51:12 PM
from what I understand its a permanent position that I guess is to help stabilize the squadron as Commanders come and go a Squadron MSGT would keep order and be an adviser to the Commander.

As for the rest of your question, so is everybody else as to who does what and why!! I am trying to figure that out myself. Someone from National needs to pass on info as to how this whole thing is going to work.

As for me, I am doing this because its new and I was NCO in the Navy and want to see how far I can go with CAP!!

I am not trying to be rude, but the following may come across as such.

Keep order? You and me both know this is at best a joke, at worst an insult to the hard working volunteer senior and cadet members. Units have done just fine without an "NCO enforcer" for years and years and years.

Let me ask you a question, as one former NCO to another. Every single person in  that unit "out ranks" you. The newest 2nd LT in fresh off of level one, if we are now saying grade matters (which IMHO that is what NHQ is saying) let alone those 50 year light birds. So, why suddenly do we NEED an NCO in each unit? There is no enlisted corps, no airman to supervise, no one to be an NCO to.

Every veteran and current service member knows that those senior NCO's on active duty gain and hold respect because they have to. They have to be good at what they do, but in cap, NCO's are just checking the boxes like everyone else. Am I, as a field grade officer now supposed to need an E-8 or E-9 by my side at all times? Have I lost the ability to be (insert duty title here) because I don't have someone in stripes next to me? Am I expected to give a CAP E-9 who has no prior service and only put on stripes in CAP the same respect I give that 30 year AF, USA, USMC,USN E-9?

I am not sure how this is going to work out... I see many issues but no answers.

Not judging any one person, just don't understand the direction that CAP NHQ is taking.


I understand where you are coming from. As far as "Order" goes, I was not using it in the sense of the word, but to help and keep the squadron going. I know most people in CAP are not military. But having an NCO rank gives people who do not want to be "officers". I know many NCO's who do not want to be "officers", but this also gives people who served a rank they know and are proud of wearing. As far as being outranked, that does not really apply to a volunteer organization. Ranks in CAP are achievements to what you accomplished. With that the respect of that rank you earn goes with it.

I agree CAP does not need an NCO enforcer, that could just go wrong quickly and dry up a squadron real quickly. I see NCO's as managerial positions, they take the load off officers and commanders and deal with things on a different level.

As far as being the low man on the totem pole, I am the DCC, Safety officer, Leadership officer, and other jobs as needed. I am doing them as I am the most qualified in my squadron to hold them. Rank does not really matter.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 09, 2015, 07:52:43 PM
Same job, different uniform. I don't really see the need, but hey...maybe there will be one eventually?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 07:55:59 PM
Ok, I'll ask it.

What position does this "squadron MSGT" hold that is so important we need to bump someone up a grade?

To date, no one has ever explained what these squadron, group or wing NCO's will doing other than "being important and must have".

Why are we in such a rush to cram NCO's Into units that have made it fine without them?

I guess I'm confused.

(P.S. For those keeping track, I took 6 months off from cap. I paid my dues today and I am a member again. Not sure how I feel yet, but felt something was missing in life, so I am 60$ lighter.)
No one is in any rush.   The promotable NCO positions are not a must have.   We understand you are confused.....we are still working on the job discriptions and duty positions.  Please be patiant.

Is there a time frame of future regs and understandings of the new NCO structure. Because right now its tough, I am asking group and wing leaders and no one can answer my questions?

Thanks
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 09, 2015, 07:59:34 PM
It is worth noting at this point that any CAP NCO would "outrank" most of the membership.  Starting with our terrific cadets, who represent something like 40%, and then add in the significant number of SMs without grade, CSMs, etc.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 08:09:04 PM
Same job, different uniform. I don't really see the need, but hey...maybe there will be one eventually?

I think its more preference than need at the moment. As for me its a personal choice to be an NCO rank vs Officer rank.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on March 09, 2015, 08:25:03 PM
So when can I trade my oak leaves for 5 stripes?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 08:27:50 PM
you actually can trade them in!! Just give a copy of dd-214 and request a change in grade to NCO!!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on March 09, 2015, 08:34:19 PM
I think the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.

Just because you are put in a Squadron NCO position, one for with MSgt is authorized, doesn't mean that you can be promoted to MSgt unless you meet the other requirements of MSgt.  You must be a TSgt, and have the requisite TIG.

What the "one grade maximum" promotion means is that you can't take a current TSgt and appoint him as the NCO Advisor to the Group Commander and make him a SMSgt.  He can be bumped to MSgt first, then when the requirements are fulfilled, the SMSgt.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 08:44:26 PM
I think the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.

Just because you are put in a Squadron NCO position, one for with MSgt is authorized, doesn't mean that you can be promoted to MSgt unless you meet the other requirements of MSgt.  You must be a TSgt, and have the requisite TIG.

What the "one grade maximum" promotion means is that you can't take a current TSgt and appoint him as the NCO Advisor to the Group Commander and make him a SMSgt.  He can be bumped to MSgt first, then when the requirements are fulfilled, the SMSgt.


I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board? 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on March 09, 2015, 08:48:59 PM
I think the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.

Just because you are put in a Squadron NCO position, one for with MSgt is authorized, doesn't mean that you can be promoted to MSgt unless you meet the other requirements of MSgt.  You must be a TSgt, and have the requisite TIG.

What the "one grade maximum" promotion means is that you can't take a current TSgt and appoint him as the NCO Advisor to the Group Commander and make him a SMSgt.  He can be bumped to MSgt first, then when the requirements are fulfilled, the SMSgt.


I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

There is no "position" of MSgt.   There is a position of "Squadron/Flight NCO", the holder of which is authorized a promotion up to MSgt if all other requirements are met.  Lower grades can serve in the position.

Also, there is no option for "meritorious" promotions in the NCO program.  "Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are nonwaiverable." (CAPR 35-5, 6-3)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 08:55:37 PM
Ok, I'll ask it.

What position does this "squadron MSGT" hold that is so important we need to bump someone up a grade?

To date, no one has ever explained what these squadron, group or wing NCO's will doing other than "being important and must have".

Why are we in such a rush to cram NCO's Into units that have made it fine without them?

I guess I'm confused.

(P.S. For those keeping track, I took 6 months off from cap. I paid my dues today and I am a member again. Not sure how I feel yet, but felt something was missing in life, so I am 60$ lighter.)
No one is in any rush.   The promotable NCO positions are not a must have.   We understand you are confused.....we are still working on the job discriptions and duty positions.  Please be patient.

Is there a time frame of future regs and understandings of the new NCO structure. Because right now its tough, I am asking group and wing leaders and no one can answer my questions?

Thanks
They can't answer you questions because then answers have not been hammered out.   Is there a time frame?  As Soon As Possible.   The NCO committee meets every month or so.   We make tweeks...they get sent up...feedback come down....rinse, repeat.

It is going to take time.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 08:56:39 PM
I think the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.

Just because you are put in a Squadron NCO position, one for with MSgt is authorized, doesn't mean that you can be promoted to MSgt unless you meet the other requirements of MSgt.  You must be a TSgt, and have the requisite TIG.

What the "one grade maximum" promotion means is that you can't take a current TSgt and appoint him as the NCO Advisor to the Group Commander and make him a SMSgt.  He can be bumped to MSgt first, then when the requirements are fulfilled, the SMSgt.


I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

There is no "position" of MSgt.   There is a position of "Squadron/Flight NCO", the holder of which is authorized a promotion up to MSgt if all other requirements are met.  Lower grades can serve in the position.

Also, there is no option for "meritorious" promotions in the NCO program.  "Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are nonwaiverable." (CAPR 35-5, 6-3)

Thank you!! That is the answer I think I am looking for. Just looking for clarity on the whole subject.

Thanks again for your input on the matter. This is a subject that needs more clarity on who and what is to happen in the NCO fields.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 08:58:21 PM
Ok, I'll ask it.

What position does this "squadron MSGT" hold that is so important we need to bump someone up a grade?

To date, no one has ever explained what these squadron, group or wing NCO's will doing other than "being important and must have".

Why are we in such a rush to cram NCO's Into units that have made it fine without them?

I guess I'm confused.

(P.S. For those keeping track, I took 6 months off from cap. I paid my dues today and I am a member again. Not sure how I feel yet, but felt something was missing in life, so I am 60$ lighter.)
No one is in any rush.   The promotable NCO positions are not a must have.   We understand you are confused.....we are still working on the job discriptions and duty positions.  Please be patient.

Is there a time frame of future regs and understandings of the new NCO structure. Because right now its tough, I am asking group and wing leaders and no one can answer my questions?

Thanks
They can't answer you questions because then answers have not been hammered out.   Is there a time frame?  As Soon As Possible.   The NCO committee meets every month or so.   We make tweeks...they get sent up...feedback come down....rinse, repeat.

It is going to take time.

Thank you very much for telling me this!! this will help kind of cool the burners a bit!! All i am trying to do is collect as much info and pass it along as it comes!!

Thanks again, :) :) :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 09, 2015, 08:58:32 PM
Unless you were an E7 you can not be appointed as one.  You must promote to it by fulfilling the requirements which have been outlined already as 2 years time grade as a TSgt and completion of Level III. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 09:00:47 PM
So when can I trade my oak leaves for 5 stripes?
I did.   Trade in my Major Leaves (and staring down Lt Col's neck) for my MSgt stripes.

We are also working on a chart that would credit CAP time/promotions to be be added to your military rank.   (i.e. Former SSgt...now a Level V Lt Col.....would not have to go all the way back to SSgt if they wanted to cross over.)  We are still working on the details....expect something formal soon.   BTW....this idea come from someone in the field....:) higher HQ types do listen to those working the streets.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 09:06:03 PM
So when can I trade my oak leaves for 5 stripes?
I did.   Trade in my Major Leaves (and staring down Lt Col's neck) for my MSgt stripes.

We are also working on a chart that would credit CAP time/promotions to be be added to your military rank.   (i.e. Former SSgt...now a Level V Lt Col.....would not have to go all the way back to SSgt if they wanted to cross over.)  We are still working on the details....expect something formal soon.   BTW....this idea come from someone in the field....:) higher HQ types do listen to those working the streets.

Is there a CAP website to track for any possible new stuff for NCO ranks and how its all going to work? or just wait for newsletters or word of mouth as it comes?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 09:10:37 PM
I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

Okay....here's how you do it.

Your Squadron commander puts together a 2a promotion package asking for advance promotion based on need and your exceptional qualification.  It get sent up the chain to the regional commander.

I will tell you right now.   

PD and TIG are not going to be waived for a squadron level NCO.  Not when we got TSgt and MSgt filling CMSgt NCO slots.

I will not say you shouldn't apply.....I will say that your best bet is go do your two years as a TSgt, get your Level III and then go through the "normal" promotion process.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 09:15:30 PM
So when can I trade my oak leaves for 5 stripes?
I did.   Trade in my Major Leaves (and staring down Lt Col's neck) for my MSgt stripes.

We are also working on a chart that would credit CAP time/promotions to be be added to your military rank.   (i.e. Former SSgt...now a Level V Lt Col.....would not have to go all the way back to SSgt if they wanted to cross over.)  We are still working on the details....expect something formal soon.   BTW....this idea come from someone in the field....:) higher HQ types do listen to those working the streets.

Is there a CAP website to track for any possible new stuff for NCO ranks and how its all going to work? or just wait for newsletters or word of mouth as it comes?
No there is not....but now that you suggest it....I will bring it up at the next meeting.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 09:18:10 PM
I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

Okay....here's how you do it.

Your Squadron commander puts together a 2a promotion package asking for advance promotion based on need and your exceptional qualification.  It get sent up the chain to the regional commander.

I will tell you right now.   

PD and TIG are not going to be waived for a squadron level NCO.  Not when we got TSgt and MSgt filling CMSgt NCO slots.

I will not say you shouldn't apply.....I will say that your best bet is go do your two years as a TSgt, get your Level III and then go through the "normal" promotion process.

Thank you for the answer, that is what I am looking for.

so when I do the 2a promotion, do we put in the remark section appoint to MSGT for purpose of filling Squadron NCO position?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 09:19:20 PM
So when can I trade my oak leaves for 5 stripes?
I did.   Trade in my Major Leaves (and staring down Lt Col's neck) for my MSgt stripes.

We are also working on a chart that would credit CAP time/promotions to be be added to your military rank.   (i.e. Former SSgt...now a Level V Lt Col.....would not have to go all the way back to SSgt if they wanted to cross over.)  We are still working on the details....expect something formal soon.   BTW....this idea come from someone in the field....:) higher HQ types do listen to those working the streets.

Is there a CAP website to track for any possible new stuff for NCO ranks and how its all going to work? or just wait for newsletters or word of mouth as it comes?
No there is not....but now that you suggest it....I will bring it up at the next meeting.

Awesome  :) :) :)

I really appreciate all the help and trying to understand this new system and how it works. Thanks again
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 09, 2015, 09:21:36 PM
I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

Okay....here's how you do it.

Your Squadron commander puts together a 2a promotion package asking for advance promotion based on need and your exceptional qualification.  It get sent up the chain to the regional commander.

I will tell you right now.   

PD and TIG are not going to be waived for a squadron level NCO.  Not when we got TSgt and MSgt filling CMSgt NCO slots.

I will not say you shouldn't apply.....I will say that your best bet is go do your two years as a TSgt, get your Level III and then go through the "normal" promotion process.

Thank you for the answer, that is what I am looking for.

so when I do the 2a promotion, do we put in the remark section appoint to MSGT for purpose of filling Squadron NCO position?
More or less....yes.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 09, 2015, 09:24:37 PM
Thank you so much for helping get a clearer picture on how to proceed with this.  :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thank you and your other NCO's for putting this all together for us!!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 09, 2015, 10:04:22 PM
Pat, it's Region Commander, not Regional Commander... >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JC004 on March 10, 2015, 01:54:44 AM
I think the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.

Just because you are put in a Squadron NCO position, one for with MSgt is authorized, doesn't mean that you can be promoted to MSgt unless you meet the other requirements of MSgt.  You must be a TSgt, and have the requisite TIG.

What the "one grade maximum" promotion means is that you can't take a current TSgt and appoint him as the NCO Advisor to the Group Commander and make him a SMSgt.  He can be bumped to MSgt first, then when the requirements are fulfilled, the SMSgt.


I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

There is no "position" of MSgt.   There is a position of "Squadron/Flight NCO", the holder of which is authorized a promotion up to MSgt if all other requirements are met.  Lower grades can serve in the position.

Also, there is no option for "meritorious" promotions in the NCO program.  "Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are nonwaiverable." (CAPR 35-5, 6-3)

Yeah....if someone wants a special promotion, go for something lower - like Lt Col.  No special MSgts...

I am thoroughly confused by the NCO thing.  And for all the years I've been offering NCO grade to military NCOs joining CAP, nobody has ever taken me up on the offer.  I have one prospective AF MSgt right now, but he said he wasn't sure he'd want to be an NCO in CAP.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: catrulz on March 10, 2015, 07:38:31 AM
I understand the regs, what little there are of them, but the fundamental question is how to do it. I just got promoted to TSGT, and we have no other NCO's, and I am asking for my sake and my commander at a point in time, how am I and my commander to appoint me to the position Squadron MSGT, I understand if i do not complete minimum requirements, unless I am "meritorious" promoted to the rank of MSGT, that I can be a MSGT. We are just asking and trying to find out a simple answer to the toughest question in CAP.

I am not trying to SMSGT just yet, got to get past this question and MSGT first  :) :) :)  but as it reads as TSGT I can hold the position as Squadron Msgt? right? wrong? did i make the mistake of trying to ask this question on this board?

Okay....here's how you do it.

Your Squadron commander puts together a 2a promotion package asking for advance promotion based on need and your exceptional qualification.  It get sent up the chain to the regional commander.

I will tell you right now.   

PD and TIG are not going to be waived for a squadron level NCO.  Not when we got TSgt and MSgt filling CMSgt NCO slots.

I will not say you shouldn't apply.....I will say that your best bet is go do your two years as a TSgt, get your Level III and then go through the "normal" promotion process.

Thank you for the answer, that is what I am looking for.

so when I do the 2a promotion, do we put in the remark section appoint to MSGT for purpose of filling Squadron NCO position?

Slight correction, promotions are done on CAPF 2, not 2a.  By the way, the current CAPR 35-5 is not fuzzy at all as concerns NCO appointments and promotions.  Chapter 1 and Chapter 6 of the regulation answer this question thoroughly.  Also, your personnel officer should understand this procedure and policy.  You might want to talk to them.

By the way, Lordmonar, I'm in the same situation, close to being Level V, major close to Lt Col.  Considering turning it all in for stripes.   I think we send our cadets a poor message as we rush them to Mitchell, and then have c/2nd LTs acting as element leaders, and our SM cadre are officers.  This makes the cadets and many of the SM participants look down their nose and devalue enlisted personnel.  Anyone who has crapped in a latrine knows NCO's run the military (I don't mean they set policy, officers do that, but that policy could not be implemented without NCO's).

Veteran NCOs would be excellent at teaching both cadets and SM/CAP officers, the principles of direct leadership.  Squadron Commanders (Group, Wing commanders) are practicing organizational leadership.  Wing Commanders and above are practicing strategic leadership.  CAP tends to do better at the Organizational and Strategic leadership than it does direct leadership.  But the direct leadership level is where "everything" is accomplished.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on March 10, 2015, 09:49:44 AM
you actually can trade them in!! Just give a copy of dd-214 and request a change in grade to NCO!!

Only trouble with that is...I was never an NCO in the military. Oh well.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on March 10, 2015, 09:58:41 AM
Anyone who has crapped in a latrine knows NCO's run the military (I don't mean they set policy, officers do that, but that policy could not be implemented without NCO's).

Please do not try to compare the NCO/Officer relationship in CAP with the NCO/Officer relationship in the military. The military has very defined roles for each that CAP does not have. If CAP does define the roles clearly with a similar "Thou Shalt Not Cross" line between them, what happens when you have a unit that is short NCOs to fill an NCO job? Demote an Officer? Leave the job unfilled? Put an Officer in the job? How will that hit on an SUI? What about the other way around? Since NCOs cannot command a unit, what happens when unit with only 1 officer as commander finishes his term? Force an NCO to become an officer? Bring in an outsider? Extend the commander's term? Shut down the unit?

For those who will say the military does cross NCO and Officer jobs, those are generally few and far between and usually are temporary until the proper graded personnel can be assigned.

For the record, I am an Army veteran, so I have some passing familiarity with NCOs in the military.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 10, 2015, 12:51:49 PM
Herbie,

Recommend that you mod your signature to reflect that eServices is showing you as SSgt vice TSGT, and that you are not qualified as an IC2 as you state.

That has to be the most interesting "official" pic I've seen on a 101 card, as well.

R/S,
Spam
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 10, 2015, 01:05:48 PM
IC2(interior Communications Electrician) was my rank in the Navy. Not the IC (incident Commander) in CAP. They approved my pic and hey it works  :) :) :) my rank to TSGT is in progress. Papers are in and signed. But just to play it safe i will revert back to it for now!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 10, 2015, 01:16:28 PM
Got it - thanks for serving!

V/R,
Spam
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 10, 2015, 01:26:36 PM
thank you for checking and asking!!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: MSG Mac on March 10, 2015, 02:09:32 PM
I think this question should be put to the current CCMSgt of CAP.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 10, 2015, 02:13:18 PM
I think this question should be put to the current CCMSgt of CAP.
What question?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: pantera3110 on March 10, 2015, 02:54:41 PM
The question I asked has been answered to my satisfaction!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on March 11, 2015, 01:30:02 AM
Herbie,

Recommend that you mod your signature to reflect that eServices is showing you as SSgt vice TSGT, and that you are not qualified as an IC2 as you state.

That has to be the most interesting "official" pic I've seen on a 101 card, as well.

R/S,
Spam

No kidding. Whoever approved that photo needs to re-read the module requirements.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on March 11, 2015, 03:12:33 AM
Regarding the IC2, the added (SW) might have been a clue that it wasn't a CAP thing.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 11, 2015, 03:21:22 AM
Regarding the IC2, the added (SW) might have been a clue that it wasn't a CAP thing.

Sure, but he's added the surface warfare designator since the comment. It used to just read IC 2.  I was curious since he's a CDC in my AO, so I looked him up, and... frowned. Blame me?

Fixed now, case closed.

V/R,
Spam
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 11, 2015, 05:52:34 AM
I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2015, 06:55:26 AM
So, I'm supposed to appoint an NCO Advisor, but there's not duty description of what this NCO would do. There's also no such position in eServices. Even if I appoint him or her with a CAPF 2A or PA and make up some duty description, there's no real guidance from above. What is he or she going to advise me on?

I keep hearing that the NCO Committee is working on it, but if the program is not yet fully developed, then why implement it partially? It seems to me that the way this was implemented was kind of a solution in search for a problem. If there's a need for NCOs, then let's identify the need first. Let's figure out what these NCOs would do that's different from what other CAP officers do. Let's figure out what training they would need to prepare them for those roles. Then we can figure out how to promote them.

I'm not oppose to an NCO corps. But I do question the way we're going about it and if there's truly value added. I guess time will tell.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 12:09:40 PM
I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 12:17:00 PM
So, I'm supposed to appoint an NCO Advisor, but there's not duty description of what this NCO would do. There's also no such position in eServices. Even if I appoint him or her with a CAPF 2A or PA and make up some duty description, there's no real guidance from above. What is he or she going to advise me on?

I keep hearing that the NCO Committee is working on it, but if the program is not yet fully developed, then why implement it partially? It seems to me that the way this was implemented was kind of a solution in search for a problem. If there's a need for NCOs, then let's identify the need first. Let's figure out what these NCOs would do that's different from what other CAP officers do. Let's figure out what training they would need to prepare them for those roles. Then we can figure out how to promote them.

I'm not oppose to an NCO corps. But I do question the way we're going about it and if there's truly value added. I guess time will tell.
We are working on it...I'm on the committee so you can take that as gospel.   We are not implementing it partially.   We are slowly expanding the old program that has existed for years and years.   As far as I know...no commanders have been officially instructed to appoint anyone to any positions.....because we are still working on the duty descriptions and getting E-Service up and running.   That does not mean you can't lean forward and start encouraging you new members who qualify to go the NCO route or your old members to cross over.   NCOs can be appointed to any position in your chain except command slots.   The "special" slots are just for the promotable positions.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2015, 12:50:40 PM

I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)

Deputy Commanders assume command of the unit in the Commander's absence. Hence, if NCOs can't be Commanders, then they shouldn't be Deputy Commanders either.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2015, 12:54:18 PM
So, I'm supposed to appoint an NCO Advisor, but there's not duty description of what this NCO would do. There's also no such position in eServices. Even if I appoint him or her with a CAPF 2A or PA and make up some duty description, there's no real guidance from above. What is he or she going to advise me on?

I keep hearing that the NCO Committee is working on it, but if the program is not yet fully developed, then why implement it partially? It seems to me that the way this was implemented was kind of a solution in search for a problem. If there's a need for NCOs, then let's identify the need first. Let's figure out what these NCOs would do that's different from what other CAP officers do. Let's figure out what training they would need to prepare them for those roles. Then we can figure out how to promote them.

I'm not oppose to an NCO corps. But I do question the way we're going about it and if there's truly value added. I guess time will tell.
We are working on it...I'm on the committee so you can take that as gospel.   We are not implementing it partially.   We are slowly expanding the old program that has existed for years and years.

Yet, a regulation was published with duty positions required for certain promotions, but without the duty position descriptions or the capability of assigning them in eServices.

NCOs can be appointed to any position in your chain except command slots.

If NCOs can do practically any job that an officer can do, then what's the purpose of having NCOs?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 12:55:00 PM

I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)

Deputy Commanders assume command of the unit in the Commander's absence. Hence, if NCOs can't be Commanders, then they shouldn't be Deputy Commanders either.
Not true.
Sorry, not supported by regulations.  Not supported by practice.

Now....if you as a commander don't want to appoint an NCO to that position....that's your choice.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 12:56:01 PM
If NCOs can do practically any job that an officer can do, then what's the purpose of having NCOs?
So we can make CAP better.

That's the long and the short of it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 01:03:50 PM
Yet, a regulation was published with duty positions required for certain promotions, but without the duty position descriptions or the capability of assigning them in eServices.

Yep....when we finished that part of it....we sent it out...slowly expanding.   When we get the duty positions ready we'll send those out......slowly expanding.   

Why all the heart burn?

Is it causing you some problems at the squadron level?   Losing missions?   Makes getting ES done harder?   Adding extra work to your admin people?

It is easy to build the frame work.  It is the details that are hard. We could have pushed out the duty positions on the same day we pushed out the promotion reg changes.  They would not have been right....but they would have been in E-services.   We want to take this in stride.  We want to make sure we are doing it right.  So....please be patient.   If you have any questions you can ask your region representative on the NCO committee.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 11, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
Well, lets go to the source of position descriptions and see...

CAPR 20-1 2 JANUARY 2013
p.27
"Group Commander
Group commanders represent the wing commander in their group. They are responsible to the Corporation and the wing commander for ensuring that corporation objectives, policies, and operational directives are effectively executed within their group. They shall:
Exercise command over all units in their group.... NOTE: The duties above also apply to the deputy group commander. Group commanders should develop a detailed position description for their deputy, outlining his/her specific duties and responsibilities in support of the overall group mission".

p.28
"Squadron Commander
Squadron commanders are responsible to the corporation and to the wing commander (or group commander if applicable) for ensuring that the corporation objectives, policies, and operational directives are effectively executed within their squadron. They shall:... [list of functions]
NOTE: The duties above also apply to the deputy squadron commander. Squadron commanders should develop a detailed position description for their deputy, outlining his/her specific duties and responsibilities in support of the overall squadron mission".


Chaser to my read, you appear correct, and I'd agree this as "supported by regulations" and practice. My read of that is, the "Exercise command" function coupled with the notation is that a Deputy Commander absolutely does hold command functions. My experience is that in practice, CDCs speak for and execute command functions the Commander in the absence of the Commander.  I have no opinion on fencing off command from NCOs, though.


Lord, to respectfully suggest to the NCO committee:
In my next command I would absolutely treasure another experienced professional NCO, and I can think of at least two or three cadet-related duties to add to an NCO PD:  serve as command fitness advisor, and serve as customs and courtesies/D&C advisor. In my last Sqdn. level command, I had one member who only drilled once a month on PT night, it was his "thing" and with his background he was outstanding and inspirational at it, with nutrition and fitness classes, games and exercises, and administration of the CPFT. I've also valued the expertise of retired NCOs in providing continuity in a training context as leadership officers (specifically with Phase I and II direct leadership topics) and as supply NCOs who understand using the "NCO network" to get what a unit needs. The plain vanilla words "assist the Commander" just don't cover the vitality a good NCO brings to a CAP unit, so I'd suggest some degree of amplification in whatever PDs y'all write up, to ensure best practices are captured (and any border line LGS dog-robbing is inhibited)!


R/S,
Spam

[/list]
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on March 11, 2015, 02:06:13 PM
If NCOs can do practically any job that an officer can do, then what's the purpose of having NCOs?
So we can make CAP better.

That's the long and the short of it.
How exactly? I keep hearing about the benefits of military and ex-military NCOs in CAP as the keeper of traditions, NCO support chain, D&C experts, etc., but what about the non-military NCOs, when those are allowed? They will be coming in with the same level of knowledge, generally speaking, as those coming in as officers. How will they become the keeper of traditions and D&C experts? And why can't officers be the keepers of tradition and D&C experts?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 11, 2015, 02:49:03 PM
I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)

They are part of the command team and the term commander is used in the title of the duty position so ergo NCOs as worded in the regulation can not be Deputy Commanders either.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on March 11, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)

They are part of the command team and the term commander is used in the title of the duty position so ergo NCOs as worded in the regulation can not be Deputy Commanders either.


Why you gotta go unbend the mind gymnastics?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 11, 2015, 03:17:58 PM
If NCOs can do practically any job that an officer can do, then what's the purpose of having NCOs?
So we can make CAP better.

That's the long and the short of it.
How exactly? I keep hearing about the benefits of military and ex-military NCOs in CAP as the keeper of traditions, NCO support chain, D&C experts, etc., but what about the non-military NCOs, when those are allowed? They will be coming in with the same level of knowledge, generally speaking, as those coming in as officers. How will they become the keeper of traditions and D&C experts? And why can't officers be the keepers of tradition and D&C experts?

Valid point. Totally forgot they're considering CAP-grown "NCOs". Thought we were only updating/recognizing real NCOs, not posers.


If I see stripes and rockers, I think "Pro NCO" and am inclined to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and to pay more attention, as I do with guys wearing service wings, ribbons or decorations. If we were to begin frocking CAP senior NCOs with no prior service as professional noncoms, my respect for and use of CAP NCOs as a group would go off a cliff. 


Still in support of tech expert SME NCOs - as long as they're "real" NCOs. Don't care if we call them Commanders or NCOICs or HMFWICs if in a leadership role.


V/R,
Spam





Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on March 11, 2015, 03:26:50 PM
If we were to begin frocking CAP senior NCOs with no prior service as professional noncoms, my respect for and use of CAP NCOs as a group would go off a cliff. 

Still in support of tech expert SME NCOs - as long as they're "real" NCOs. Don't care if we call them Commanders or NCOICs or HMFWICs if in a leadership role.

But it is okay to insert "poser officers" in with "real officers"?

You do realize that for years CAP had NCOs that were "posers" right?
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 11, 2015, 03:29:59 PM

I find it interesting that he is a CDC since the reg states NCOs can not be a commander.
Deputy Commanders are not Commanders.    By definition.  :)

Deputy Commanders assume command of the unit in the Commander's absence. Hence, if NCOs can't be Commanders, then they shouldn't be Deputy Commanders either.
Not true.
Sorry, not supported by regulations.  Not supported by practice.

CAP or Air Force? In 18 years of service I've never seen an NCO assigned as deputy commander in the Air Force. CAP? I think the small percentage of NCOs and non-existent regulation on the matter can hardly be construed as "practice".

Yet, a regulation was published with duty positions required for certain promotions, but without the duty position descriptions or the capability of assigning them in eServices.

Yep....when we finished that part of it....we sent it out...slowly expanding.   When we get the duty positions ready we'll send those out......slowly expanding.   

Why all the heart burn?

Is it causing you some problems at the squadron level?   Losing missions?   Makes getting ES done harder?   Adding extra work to your admin people?

It's causing confusion. It's causing another division within the membership. It's eliminating a sector of our membership from potential command assignments. It's adding additional paperwork since there's no online method for promoting NCOs or assigning them to these special NCO positions. Other than that, no heart burns.

It is easy to build the frame work.  It is the details that are hard. We could have pushed out the duty positions on the same day we pushed out the promotion reg changes.  They would not have been right....but they would have been in E-services.   We want to take this in stride.  We want to make sure we are doing it right.  So....please be patient.   If you have any questions you can ask your region representative on the NCO committee.

I have a couple of questions for you. How do NCOs make CAP better? And, what can a CAP NCO do that a CAP officer can't?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on March 11, 2015, 04:43:42 PM
If I see stripes and rockers, I think "Pro NCO" and am inclined to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and to pay more attention,

Why?  They are no more likely to know the first thing about CAP than anyone else.  In fact, under current regulations there is a decent chance that they know an awful lot less about CAP than a home-grown CAP 1st Lieutenant since they are in one of the favored groups that gets rank by bypassing the normal system that makes you figure out what is what in CAP. 

Like any former military member they have a distinct advantage in a very small sliver of CAP life -- knowing how to wear their uniform properly.  They hopefully also have a heaping dose of general leadership skills.  But when it comes time to knowing how to specifically get something done in CAP they don't know any more than the lifelong cafeteria worker. 

The reverse elitism in regards to service NCOs just amuses me to no end. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 11, 2015, 05:05:46 PM
I have tried to stay out of this as much possible.  Lord I think that this program would be more well received if there was more clear cut guidance on it.  The tap dancing and insistence that it is a great thing I feel is doing more harm than good.

This was something that was thought up wasn't fully developed and kicked out for membership to receive and support with virtually nothing guide it at all.  You say the committee is working on it and there is more coming.

Now I wear stripes as an NCO for my day job and bars for my CAP job and honestly from both perspectives I do not see much that a CAP NCO can do just as well or better than the officer corp currently does.  You and I both know the amount of time, effort, training and money it costs to produce a quality NCO in the service and let's be honest anyone coming off the street and opting for the enlisted route is not going to have that. 

As one NCO to another I applaud you for embracing this new concept and working to get it somewhere, however I see a lot of smoke an mirror and just because responses when it comes to what exactly they are suppose to do in the unit, duty descriptions, and what overall benefit that an NCO corp will provide that is currently not provided by the current corp of limited NCOs and the officer corp. 

You and I both know that for something to be received and work well there should be a buy in from the majority of people involved.  And while CAPTALK is not a representation as a whole of the the CAP membership I am not seeing a lot of buy in from the membership who will be expected to administer and oversee this program. 

This is something that should have waited until it was fully developed before being put out.  Then we wouldn't have misguided personnel looking for answers on a virtual non existent program. 

So I ask you as an NCO to another what is the benefit that a CAP NCO brings to the table that can not already be filled by current CAP officers such as myself? What is role/s are they expected to do and duties they are expected to perform that are not or simply can not be performed by the current officer corp?  How do you propose to build a quality CAP NCO with no prior service background once the programs gets to that point of implementation? 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 11, 2015, 05:26:01 PM
I'm traveling right now.   I will try to answer all your questions tonight.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Fubar on March 11, 2015, 11:11:53 PM
So I ask you as an NCO to another what is the benefit that a CAP NCO brings to the table that can not already be filled by current CAP officers such as myself?

This basic question should have been answered before any regulations were changed or any working groups were formed. Instead, the only answer I've seen so far is that it's a perfect way to ensure you won't ever have to be a commander. I'm pretty sure my squadron will end up as a group of NCOs with a 2d Lt as the squadron commander.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 12, 2015, 12:38:22 AM
Pat, what really needs to happen is that the program needs to be put on hold until you guys get everything settled.
This thing is nowhere near ready for prime time and it was a big time mistake to launch this program before it was anywhere near ready.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 01:32:14 AM
Okay.....Caveats  first.   

The following is mostly my personal opinion and may not represent the opions/aims/goals/policies of the NCO committee or the Civil Air Patrol.   So keep your anger directed at me and not at CAP, NHQ, or the NCO program in general.


So...having said that.

IMHO I think that the current CAP rank/PD/promotion system is broken.   Not totally broken, not unfixable, not sending CAP down the toilet at the next full moon.....just broken in the sense that it does not do what rank and promotions mean in most other organizations that use military rank.

The fact that we got 21 year olds walking off the street and do some online courses and wait six months and bam!  They are 2d Lts.......is just not right IMHO.   Our parent service, our non-military customers, and even our own members just don't look at CAP officers as "real" officers.  It is possible to move up the ranks to Lt Col with out ever....not once.....ever hold a job above the squadron level.   Our top ranking non-commanders....supposed masters in the duty specialty.....have never done the job above that of normal squadron Lt.  That IMHO is wrong as well.

So....a possible fix to that is to make it harder to become an officer, beef up the training to be an officer and offer another path of service for those who can't or wont get what is needed to be an officer.

Using the military model....that means a mostly enlisted force.

That is my aim and goal for transforming CAP.

Most CAP members would join up and become Airman Basics....and move up the line from there.

To get to that end we have to build an NCO corps to be in place, ready to lead those future enlisted members.

To build an NCO corps we are using to existing structure and making small incremental changes.

NOW....once again......this is my own opinion.   No where have we officially talked about creating an enlisted corps.....it is just an idea that I would like to promote....once we get an open and professional NCO corps up and running.

As for PHall's comment......yes I agree that maybe we did announce a little early.

But on the ground truth of things.....what are we talking about.   Right now there are only about 90 +/- stripe wearing NCOs in CAP.

The changes to the promotion regulations are not complete.....but this is not the first time CAP has pushed changes to regulations with out the supporting leg work being ready at the time of publishing the regulation.  (SAFETY and CPP jump to mind right off the bat).

But as far as making problems.....well.....we are talking about less then 100 people right now.

CAP is slow....we all know that.  It takes time to work and issue...run it up the flag pole, bring it back down, wash rinse repeat.   

A lot of your criticisms is correct.  There is not a lot of information out there......the duty positions are not finalized, and E-service does not support the promotions.   We need to get more information out to the troops.    I will bring this up at the next meeting... (if the Chief does not read it first here  :) ).     

As for Fubar's comment.....so?  What is wrong with that?   Makes more sense in a lot of ways....a bunch of NCOs getting the job done and a LT or Captain bossing them around.  Sounds like a good plan to me.

Draw that out....Group would have a Maj or Lt Col bossing around a bunch of MSgts and TSgts getting the mission done.  Wing will have a bunch of Majors and Lt Cols. working with SMSgts and CMSgts being bossed by the Col getting the mission done.

Sound like almost exactly how our parent service does things.

Okay...now putting my PCR Command SNCO hat on......what I'm asking for from PCR's NCOs is to continue to do what ever job you are currently doing.    I also ask them to become "That Guy".  The guy who when he walks into a staff meeting all members suddenly feel guilty about their uniforms.   The guy who reminds members when and how to salute, how to properly do a "shake, Take, Smile Salute" at the awards banquet.   They guy the squadron commander goes to, to run the change of command ceremony.    To put the USAF blue back into the USAF AUX.

That does not mean to make it Full Metal Jacket....or it too tied up in calling everyone sir/ma'am that CAP is not fun.   But to remind our members that we are the USAF AUX and we are a para military organization.

We also need our NCOs to step up and help out making this NCO Corps a real thing.   We are going to need a lot of SMEs to help us write the NCO training curriculum.   So that when we open it up to non-prior service members.....we do instill the true meaning of what and NCO is.

Okay....[/Rant]

I know what you guys are saying....I am listening......and your concerns are making up to the committee....not just from me but from everyone.   Commanders, PDOs and Personnel Officers at all levels need to be up channeling these concerns up to your wing commander....and up to region.   We are still trying very hard to find people to fill these NCO positions (even if we have not written the job description yet).

We are working on making crossing over to the NCO side more attractive to the non-stripe wearing former NCOs.    Again.....these things take time.     No one is in any hurry to push this down to the squadron level.  No one should be saying "you must appoint an NCO".....we are no where that far down the road.

Thanks for listening.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on March 12, 2015, 03:04:43 AM
As a current stripe wearing NCO (and previous bar wearing CAP person) I have to agree with most here in that I am not seeing the forest thru the trees on this one at this point.    ie how do all of these "NCO" attributes suddenly become diminshed just because I put bars on instead of stripes?   Does someone really listen more to me gripe about their uniform failures or C&C issues because I am an NCO?  I would like to think they listen because I am right, or more specifically because I speak with an air of authority and conviction and generally proffesional bearing; and that shouldnt matter (especially in CAP) if I have stripes, bars or stars.

Now, I get the explanation on making it hearder to become an officer; what else will you do with the rank and file, and if by that "change" you have more enlisted guys, you need senior enlisted positons not only to manage that group, but also for somewhere for them to progress to.  But if you are looking to fix the "customer perception" of why is everyone is a LT or why is that colonel the guy getting coffee, I think they will be just as confused with the 65 year old A1C!

Quote
You and I both know the amount of time, effort, training and money it costs to produce a quality NCO in the service and let's be honest anyone coming off the street and opting for the enlisted route is not going to have that.

I see plenty of people in the civilian workforce that hold equivilent management postions-they function as small unit leaders-they have a pretty good understanding the dynamics of leadership/followership and are basically SME's at the tactical level.  examples that come to mind: Fire department line officers, Police Cpl's and SGT's,  EMS crew chiefs, ER charge nurses, they all pretty much function as shift supervisors, manage the poeple under them, assign task, problem solve low level issues, etc etc.  I would even say people in the rest of the corporate type world-store and resteraunt managers have pretty much the same type responsabilities.   If these same peple are interested in coming to CAP, those same "management" skills can be put into play as NCO's once they learn and underastand the mission and are technically compentent in the skill sets they are being put into; be it ES, cadet programs or just general program management/staff positions.  (if I can teach a 20 year old "kid" how to be an effective NCO with no experience other than being on the receiveing end of an NCO, I am pretty sure we can do the same thing to a 30 some year old that has already had some basic management experience)  I am not too worried that they wont be able to be "real" NCO's.

MK

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 04:11:03 AM
No one ever said that former NCO's lose their effectiveness wearing bars (or oak leaves in my case).

That is not really the issue.

If CAP did nothing....it would just continue on as it has for the last 70+ years.   

Creating and NCO corps and and an enlisted corps is not the only answer.....it is just one of them.

We could go with getting away from the whole military model all together....that is one option....not one I like it would change CAP too much IMHO.  We could just make everyone a Flight Officer.....no one wears military rank.
We could make every one a flight officer and only those in command and deputy command positions wear military rank while they hold those positions and revert back to FO status when they step down.

The question is.....how much change do we want to make?

The new NCO program is just a change to the existing program.    Former NCOs can now progress up the ranks.    No change other changes except they are now no longer able to hold command positions.....which at last count was only 1-2 individuals.

As for the concern that the NCO corps will such up the pool of qualified commanders.......simple fix....make them officers.   It's been done before.  :)

I agree.....once again.....there is not a lot of information out there for the rank and file of where this is all going to end.....mainly because we don't really know where it is going to end.    We are making changes, seeing how they work and then deciding from there what step to take next.   Not trying to ram down a total revamped system that screws up everything to hell and back and no way to fix it if we find out it does not work.

Hence the phase system....and the baby steps.

We got a promotion system for NCOs.   

We may just decide to stop there........if we can't find a way to make a workable training program to bring in non-prior services members into the NCO corps....then we have not screwed anything up.  We have just built a way to promote our stripe wearing NCOs.   And if down the road that does not work...we can always just turn it off too without much damage to the organization.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on March 12, 2015, 06:48:01 AM
You know, without Eclipse's input, this thread has lost all meaning  >:D

No, seriously...where is he?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on March 12, 2015, 12:12:26 PM
Pat, I understand what you are saying; I'm just not buying it.  We, as an organization, have gone down so many dead end roads, I think we need to regroup, rethink, and really form a plan for enlarging and strengthening  the "tent".  IMHO, there is nothing being done to structurally get from here to there. 

Then, again, what do I know...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 12:45:35 PM
I think we are strengthening the tent.  Even if we do no more with the NCO program.  We made the already existing NCO program stronger.  That in itself is a good thing. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 12, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
What possible incentives could there be to attract former NCOs turned Officers back? Especially if its just different training, less positions, and more "work" to make the switch. Still seems like an unguided mess that I wouldn't want to get mixed up in...and this is coming from someone who LOVED being an Infantry NCO.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 02:55:16 PM
Making the switch is easy.   Fill out a form 2 attach a coy if your dd214, promotion orders, or your military ID showing your rank.  And mail it to NHQ.  Easy please.  That has not changed. 

As for incentives.    The idea is say you were an E-5 but are now a CAP Lt Col.   You could get advanced to SMSgt.     

This was an idea that came from the field and presented the committee.   We have not yet approved it.   But it did meet with favor by the members and we are running it up to the CSAG for feedback.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 12, 2015, 03:26:33 PM
So, essentially a downgrade.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on March 12, 2015, 04:19:15 PM
Our parent service, our non-military customers, and even our own members just don't look at CAP officers as "real" officers. 
And they NEVER EVER WILL no matter what we do to our system.  Even if we were to only allow former military members to become CAP officers, the real military would still just look upon them as civilian volunteers -- because that is what they would be.  We don't get any credit now for having a significant percentage of our adult members having been in the military and that isn't going to change to matter what system we have. 

We shouldn't worry one second what others think of our internal rank system any more so than the Salvation Army does. 

I agree that our promotion system has some major holes in it (almost entirely having to do with advanced promotions).  And I actually wouldn't have a problem with making EVERYONE (even former military Colonels) that joins CAP start at Airman and work their way up a PD track designed for enlisted persons and then move into an entirely separate track for officers (having NCOs and Officers do the same exact classes to promote is just stupid). 

We have to have a system that gives CAP members the knowledge, skills and abilities that CAP needs. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on March 12, 2015, 04:23:23 PM
I agree that our promotion system has some major holes in it (almost entirely having to do with advanced promotions). 

And the last rev actually made that problem worse.

One of the few advanced promotions that actually had CAP-relevance was the bump to Captain that Squadron Commanders got after one year as 1st Lts, and they removed that one.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on March 12, 2015, 04:30:06 PM
Seems a shame that the NCO's are so much in demand, but E-4's and below, not so much.  Kind of a slap in the face for those that served.  Maybe, just maybe those E-4's and below that are now Field Grade won't hold it against the NCO's...  Nahhhh, that wouldn't ever happen...  Good enough to get shot at and killed, but not to be represented in CAP...  Thanks a lot for the pride and honor of service..  Ahhhh, to be an E-5 Garret Trooper...  Spit shined boots, poor old grunt comes in all stinking and dirty..  Some things never change.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 12, 2015, 04:55:24 PM
The question that is still yet to be answered.  What are CAP NCOs going to do and bring to the table that cannot be accomplished by current CAP officers? 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 12, 2015, 05:11:11 PM
The question that is still yet to be answered.  What are CAP NCOs going to do and bring to the table that cannot be accomplished by current CAP officers?

They'll let you know when the horse shows up.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 12, 2015, 06:20:49 PM
The question that is still yet to be answered.  What are CAP NCOs going to do and bring to the table that cannot be accomplished by current CAP officers?

We've answered it several times, in several threads in which you participated.

Like this  over 900 post thread  (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18078.0) from late 2013.

Or this  350 + classic  (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11978.0) from 2010.

(We sure like going in circles on CAPTalk . . .    ;) )

The short version:

Every single military (and military-styled) organization since the Roman legions have employed both officer and NCO positions.  And it's not just the last 2000 years; even in the future Starfleet uses a mixture of officers and NCOs for their leadership.  Indeed, it is breathtaking how consistent this military formula is across the millennia.  There have been dozens of radically different types of governments instituted among mankind.  Churches of dizzying variety and composition.  Business forms ranging from sole proprietorships to mega-corporations.

But military structure has always included both officers and NCOs.  Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers.  There roles overlap, but they are decidedly different.  Just ask any of the million or so living veterans.  Perhaps they can explain it better than I. 

Of course, officers can pick up the slack when there are insufficient NCOs; and the reverse is also true.  But the system works better when we all work as a coordinated team.

CAP has had NCOs since Curry, Spaatz, and La Guardia set it up.  I'd like to think they knew what they were doing.  Sure, the program has been tweaked from time to time (just like the CAP officer structure), but there were CAP NCOs when I joined over 40 years ago, and we have them today.

Just in the Cadet Program tent, I could put 1200 CAP NCOs to work tomorrow by assigning one to each cadet and composite unit to serve as Leadership Officers.  Essentially by definition, NCOs have years of experience mentoring and developing junior leaders in a military environment.  And since every single cadet must develop their followership and  leadership skills initially as an airman and cadet NCO, senior member NCOs could and would provide outstanding and needed support.

Of course, we have a terrific CP without significant numbers of CAP NCOs, so I can't claim that CAP NCOs are crucial. 

But our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.

If  we had a mature CAP senior member enlisted/NCO structure in CP, at the squadron I would expect to see SSgts and Tsgts working more or less directly with the troops; directly monitoring training and mentoring the cadet instructors for things like D & C, and acting as instructors.  I would normally expect senior NCOs (MSgt +) to do things like training schedules, coordinate and rehearse instructors, mentor both the junior NCOs and the cadet staff, conduct CP-related professional development for the senior member side, and also serve in additional duties for the unit as a whole (things like unit First Sergeant, Personnel and Admin NCO, etc.).

At the group, wing, and region level I would expect senior NCOs to work as SMEs in CP.  I would probably see them working on CI and SAV teams, maintaining associated records and providing administrative support, directly coordinating with their counterparts at lower and higher levels, planning CP activities at their level, producing reports and maintaining electronic data, and mentoring and training NCOs at lower echelons.

At things like encampments, NCOs would provide valuable support on the tactical staff, liaisoning with host facilities, as well as serving as  logisticians and administrators. 

And at all levels, NCOs - like all SMs - would be eligible for the dreaded "similar and related duties as required."  8)

(Remember, this last portion is a vision for a mature and self-generating enlisted structure, NOT what we have today.  Today, our NCOs come to us pre-trained in leadership and organizational skills by Uncle Sam and all we have to add are the CAP-specific skills.  This may well change as we tweak the program to allow non-prior service CAP NCOs).






Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on March 12, 2015, 06:28:09 PM
So...nothing new.

Former cadets, experienced Seniors in CP, can and do those roles. We just want NCOs because..  Why not?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 12, 2015, 06:43:03 PM
So...nothing new.

Former cadets, experienced Seniors in CP, can and do those roles. We just want NCOs because..  Why not?

In the sense that CAP is trying to use NCOs to operate efficiently and effectively as militaries have done for thousands of years, then you are absolutely right.  "Nothing new."  Just a lot of very, very good Old Stuff.

Why did you think good NCOs are something new?

And BTW, "former cadets, experienced seniors in CP" are already well represented in the NCO ranks.  Why do you think we don't need more of them?



Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 07:26:07 PM

So, essentially a downgrade.
If the so choose.  Like I did and many others did.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 07:28:45 PM

Our parent service, our non-military customers, and even our own members just don't look at CAP officers as "real" officers. 
And they NEVER EVER WILL no matter what we do to our system.  Even if we were to only allow former military members to become CAP officers, the real military would still just look upon them as civilian volunteers -- because that is what they would be.  We don't get any credit now for having a significant percentage of our adult members having been in the military and that isn't going to change to matter what system we have. 

We shouldn't worry one second what others think of our internal rank system any more so than the Salvation Army does. 

I agree that our promotion system has some major holes in it (almost entirely having to do with advanced promotions).  And I actually wouldn't have a problem with making EVERYONE (even former military Colonels) that joins CAP start at Airman and work their way up a PD track designed for enlisted persons and then move into an entirely separate track for officers (having NCOs and Officers do the same exact classes to promote is just stupid). 

We have to have a system that gives CAP members the knowledge, skills and abilities that CAP needs.
yep we could keep what we got and survive.   I would like to make it better.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 07:33:11 PM

The question that is still yet to be answered.  What are CAP NCOs going to do and bring to the table that cannot be accomplished by current CAP officers?
Nothing that we don't already bring to the table.  It does put us in a position to make an enlisted corps and to make being an officer harder and more like an AD officer.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 07:37:39 PM

So...nothing new.

Former cadets, experienced Seniors in CP, can and do those roles. We just want NCOs because..  Why not?
on one level.   Yes.  Why not?   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on March 12, 2015, 07:47:45 PM
Quote
But our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.

I would bet good money that the majority of CAP units have one or two experienced NCOs in them at this very moment.  They're just wearing officer ranks. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 12, 2015, 08:01:38 PM

I would bet good money that the majority of CAP units have one or two experienced NCOs in them at this very moment.  They're just wearing officer ranks.

I'd sure like to think so, but doubt it based just on numbers.  Most cadet units don't have a single vet, let alone two or more.  But rather than quibble about numbers, let me turn it around a bit.

"I would bet good money that the majority of AF units have one or two experienced former NCOs wearing officer rank in them at this very moment."  And yet no on in the AF serious questions the value of having both officer and NCOs in their structure. 

What do you suppose that is?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on March 12, 2015, 08:53:35 PM

I would bet good money that the majority of CAP units have one or two experienced NCOs in them at this very moment.  They're just wearing officer ranks.

I'd sure like to think so, but doubt it based just on numbers.  Most cadet units don't have a single vet, let alone two or more.  But rather than quibble about numbers, let me turn it around a bit.

"I would bet good money that the majority of AF units have one or two experienced former NCOs wearing officer rank in them at this very moment."  And yet no on in the AF serious questions the value of having both officer and NCOs in their structure. 

What do you suppose that is?
Because the the AF (and the rest of the military) has uniquely defined roles for NCOs and Officers. CAP does not. Other than NCOs not being able to command units, nothing has been presented to identify the unique and different role NCOs will play in relation to the role Officers will play.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on March 12, 2015, 09:18:05 PM
So...nothing new.

Former cadets, experienced Seniors in CP, can and do those roles. We just want NCOs because..  Why not?

In the sense that CAP is trying to use NCOs to operate efficiently and effectively as militaries have done for thousands of years, then you are absolutely right.  "Nothing new."  Just a lot of very, very good Old Stuff.

Why did you think good NCOs are something new?

And BTW, "former cadets, experienced seniors in CP" are already well represented in the NCO ranks.  Why do you think we don't need more of them?

Well represented? There's about 100 NCOs in CAP right now. How many are former cadets, or have 2+ CP experience in CAP? I can bet there are thousands amongst current SM Officers.

And we definitely need more of them.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 12, 2015, 09:54:17 PM
Col Lee  I am well versed on what the services do and importance of the enlisted and officers.  As another poster pointed out the roles are well defined.  As I have mentioned I wear stripes for my day job and bring that to the org where I wear bars. 

We are not the military in anyway shape or form.  As an NCO I am questionin this because I do not see how this is going to improve our org when you have officers such as myself who are NCOs for our day job and Officers for CAP.  How can leadership or proponets for this program expect a very much needed buyin do so without the answees to simple valud questions?

This should have been kept in developement until fully thought out and not piece mealed together like it is. 

Until simple questions and items are defined there will continue to be push back and the stance this is not needed.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 10:09:39 PM

I would bet good money that the majority of CAP units have one or two experienced NCOs in them at this very moment.  They're just wearing officer ranks.

I'd sure like to think so, but doubt it based just on numbers.  Most cadet units don't have a single vet, let alone two or more.  But rather than quibble about numbers, let me turn it around a bit.

"I would bet good money that the majority of AF units have one or two experienced former NCOs wearing officer rank in them at this very moment."  And yet no on in the AF serious questions the value of having both officer and NCOs in their structure. 

What do you suppose that is?
Because the the AF (and the rest of the military) has uniquely defined roles for NCOs and Officers. CAP does not. Other than NCOs not being able to command units, nothing has been presented to identify the unique and different role NCOs will play in relation to the role Officers will play.
You are right....and the NCO Committee is working to define those roles.   In the mean time we have created a way for current and future CAP NCO's to promote.

We did not invent CAP NCOs.....they have always been there.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 12, 2015, 10:17:12 PM
Col Lee  I am well versed on what the services do and importance of the enlisted and officers.  As another poster pointed out the roles are well defined.  As I have mentioned I wear stripes for my day job and bring that to the org where I wear bars. 

We are not the military in anyway shape or form.  As an NCO I am questionin this because I do not see how this is going to improve our org when you have officers such as myself who are NCOs for our day job and Officers for CAP.  How can leadership or proponets for this program expect a very much needed buyin do so without the answees to simple valud questions?

This should have been kept in developement until fully thought out and not piece mealed together like it is. 

Until simple questions and items are defined there will continue to be push back and the stance this is not needed.

I gently suggest that you have this reversed.  There really is nothing new going on that "needs to be kept in development."

To the contrary, we have had NCOs since CAP began.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  All we are doing is tweaking the program to allow non-prior service NCOs to serve, and allow prior service NCOs to be promoted and enjoy career progression unrelated to their day jobs.

And we can debate the fine points of whether CAP is "military," "paramilitary," or something else.  But we probably generally agree that there is a whole lot of military-like stuff going on.  Commanders, uniforms, regulations, uniforms, drill and ceremonies, rank insignia, punishment for insubordination, customs and courtesies, occasional auxiliary status, activities on military facilities, oversight by a military service, and a history of armed service to our nation.

We can discuss semantics until the wee hours (and I'll buy the first round), but this much is real:  CAP has officers and NCOs.  We just need to make full use of our existing structure.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 12, 2015, 11:16:07 PM
Col Lee  I am well versed on what the services do and importance of the enlisted and officers.  As another poster pointed out the roles are well defined.  As I have mentioned I wear stripes for my day job and bring that to the org where I wear bars. 

We are not the military in anyway shape or form.  As an NCO I am questionin this because I do not see how this is going to improve our org when you have officers such as myself who are NCOs for our day job and Officers for CAP.  How can leadership or proponets for this program expect a very much needed buyin do so without the answees to simple valud questions?

This should have been kept in developement until fully thought out and not piece mealed together like it is. 

Until simple questions and items are defined there will continue to be push back and the stance this is not needed.

I gently suggest that you have this reversed.  There really is nothing new going on that "needs to be kept in development."

To the contrary, we have had NCOs since CAP began.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  All we are doing is tweaking the program to allow non-prior service NCOs to serve, and allow prior service NCOs to be promoted and enjoy career progression unrelated to their day jobs.

And we can debate the fine points of whether CAP is "military," "paramilitary," or something else.  But we probably generally agree that there is a whole lot of military-like stuff going on.  Commanders, uniforms, regulations, uniforms, drill and ceremonies, rank insignia, punishment for insubordination, customs and courtesies, occasional auxiliary status, activities on military facilities, oversight by a military service, and a history of armed service to our nation.

We can discuss semantics until the wee hours (and I'll buy the first round), but this much is real:  CAP has officers and NCOs.  We just need to make full use of our existing structure.

Ned, there was a couple of us in CAWG that tried to do the NCO thing (you know who we are).
And we both got told that as long as we were NCO's our roles would be limited in CP.
Thus the reason why both of us ended up going back to "officer" grade.
Fix those mostly "Army" attitudes and you might get a few more NCO players.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 12, 2015, 11:40:44 PM
I will bring it up to both the NCO commitee and to the Region commander.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 13, 2015, 01:24:15 AM
This is my take on this whole discussion. As of right now, we don't really have an NCO program. We have a provision for current and former military NCOs to become CAP NCOs, which we've had for a long time. What's new is that now these CAP NCOs can be promoted within CAP. We also have CAP-specific chevrons. Other than that, the NCO structure remains unchanged.

Now, I don't have a problem with expanding the NCO program, to include developing specific NCO PD, defining their specific roles and even providing a way for non-prior service members to become CAP NCOs. I do have a problem with comments such as we're developing a CAP NCO program so "we can make CAP better." How does developing a CAP NCO program make CAP better? That's the question.

The best explanation given by MSgt Harris for expanding the NCO program is the one where most members would join CAP as enlisted, NCOs would train and supervise those members, and officers would command and run other high level staff functions. As such, becoming a CAP officer would be harder. I see merit in that explanation and would actually support that change. Unfortunately, that's not the official program or even vision for developing the CAP NCO corps.

If we're going to promote and expand the CAP NCO program, then we have to define what the NCO role is going to be. There has to be specific training and PD for them. Just saying "an NCO can do any job an officer do" just doesn't cut it. If we're going to have a caste system in CAP, then it has to come with significant benefits. The NCO must fulfill a specific function and so does the officer. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to have this division.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 02:27:25 AM
This is my take on this whole discussion. As of right now, we don't really have an NCO program. We have a provision for current and former military NCOs to become CAP NCOs, which we've had for a long time. What's new is that now these CAP NCOs can be promoted within CAP. We also have CAP-specific chevrons. Other than that, the NCO structure remains unchanged.

Now, I don't have a problem with expanding the NCO program, to include developing specific NCO PD, defining their specific roles and even providing a way for non-prior service members to become CAP NCOs. I do have a problem with comments such as we're developing a CAP NCO program so "we can make CAP better." How does developing a CAP NCO program make CAP better? That's the question.
Asked and answered.....but I'll try again.

It is too easy to become a Lt Col in CAP.

One of the reasons our parent organization, our customers and our selves....look down on our rank structure is....because it is too easy.  A GED and six months and you are a Lt.

If we (by that I mean CAP Leadership) wish to make becoming an officer harder, and promoting up the Officer ranks more in line with "real" officers......then we need to have an avenue for those who can't or won't make the grade to continue to serve.

Also by creating a traditional officer/enlisted dichotomy...we can actually build our training and our SOPs around that.   Those who have no desire to work at group/wing/region/national level.....can stay enlisted.  They will have PME tailored toward the concept of working in the squadron and getting the job done.   Those who wish and have the back ground and ability to take on the jobs at higher levels......they go the O route...with PME and training specifically tailored around the strategic and outward looking leadership that is more in line with the traditional officer role.

Quote
The best explanation given by MSgt Harris for expanding the NCO program is the one where most members would join CAP as enlisted, NCOs would train and supervise those members, and officers would command and run other high level staff functions. As such, becoming a CAP officer would be harder. I see merit in that explanation and would actually support that change. Unfortunately, that's not the official program or even vision for developing the CAP NCO corps.

Baby steps.   And if you read the NCO white paper that started all this rolling year before last....you will see that building an NCO corps is part and parcel of an attempt to make the officer core better.

Quote
If we're going to promote and expand the CAP NCO program, then we have to define what the NCO role is going to be. There has to be specific training and PD for them. Just saying "an NCO can do any job an officer do" just doesn't cut it. If we're going to have a caste system in CAP, then it has to come with significant benefits. The NCO must fulfill a specific function and so does the officer. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to have this division.
Yes you are right.....and all that is coming.    The job descriptions for the "promotable" jobs are in the works......They were sent to the last CSAG (two weeks ago?)   I expect that there is some more tweaking to be done to them....if not....then they got to get handed over to the 20-1 guys.....to kick out the new reg......and I expect that they have some changes they may want to work on independent of the NCO job descriptions....so we may be delayed even more. 

We have not yet started working on the NCO specific PME.   We have been tasked to start thinking about what we want it to look like, what format are we going to do it, what sort of areas it should cover.    But that is far as that goes.   We are still in PHASE ONE of a three phase frame work....that is expect to take 2-3 years per phase.

As we move forward we will continue to develop the two tiered functions you mentioned.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 13, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
This is my take on this whole discussion. As of right now, we don't really have an NCO program. We have a provision for current and former military NCOs to become CAP NCOs, which we've had for a long time. What's new is that now these CAP NCOs can be promoted within CAP. We also have CAP-specific chevrons. Other than that, the NCO structure remains unchanged.

Now, I don't have a problem with expanding the NCO program, to include developing specific NCO PD, defining their specific roles and even providing a way for non-prior service members to become CAP NCOs. I do have a problem with comments such as we're developing a CAP NCO program so "we can make CAP better." How does developing a CAP NCO program make CAP better? That's the question.
Asked and answered.....but I'll try again.

It is too easy to become a Lt Col in CAP.

One of the reasons our parent organization, our customers and our selves....look down on our rank structure is....because it is too easy.  A GED and six months and you are a Lt.

If we (by that I mean CAP Leadership) wish to make becoming an officer harder, and promoting up the Officer ranks more in line with "real" officers......then we need to have an avenue for those who can't or won't make the grade to continue to serve.

Also by creating a traditional officer/enlisted dichotomy...we can actually build our training and our SOPs around that.   Those who have no desire to work at group/wing/region/national level.....can stay enlisted.  They will have PME tailored toward the concept of working in the squadron and getting the job done.   Those who wish and have the back ground and ability to take on the jobs at higher levels......they go the O route...with PME and training specifically tailored around the strategic and outward looking leadership that is more in line with the traditional officer role.

Yes, you said that already on a previous post. I didn't disagree with your explanation. But there's a small issue, as you stated yourself, this is your opinion and vision and not necessary supported by CAP leadership. There's no official guidance indicating that this is the plan. If it was, we wouldn't be having this particular conversation.

Quote
The best explanation given by MSgt Harris for expanding the NCO program is the one where most members would join CAP as enlisted, NCOs would train and supervise those members, and officers would command and run other high level staff functions. As such, becoming a CAP officer would be harder. I see merit in that explanation and would actually support that change. Unfortunately, that's not the official program or even vision for developing the CAP NCO corps.

Baby steps.   And if you read the NCO white paper that started all this rolling year before last....you will see that building an NCO corps is part and parcel of an attempt to make the officer core better.

A white paper if not official policy or guidance. We don't really know that this is going to happen, as it has not be communicated as such by those who make or clarify policy.

Quote
If we're going to promote and expand the CAP NCO program, then we have to define what the NCO role is going to be. There has to be specific training and PD for them. Just saying "an NCO can do any job an officer do" just doesn't cut it. If we're going to have a caste system in CAP, then it has to come with significant benefits. The NCO must fulfill a specific function and so does the officer. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to have this division.
Yes you are right.....and all that is coming.    The job descriptions for the "promotable" jobs are in the works......They were sent to the last CSAG (two weeks ago?)   I expect that there is some more tweaking to be done to them....if not....then they got to get handed over to the 20-1 guys.....to kick out the new reg......and I expect that they have some changes they may want to work on independent of the NCO job descriptions....so we may be delayed even more.

It may be coming, but it's not out yet. When a member who qualifies for a CAP NCO grade asks me what do NCOs do, I'm forced to respond that pretty much what every other member does... because it's true. Many don't see that as an incentive to joining CAP as NCOs. I had that discussion recently with a retired E-9, who didn't see much incentive to becoming a CAP CMSgt. I was able to persuade him by offering him a Group NCO Advisor position. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to define what the role will really be... and I shouldn't have to.

We have not yet started working on the NCO specific PME.   We have been tasked to start thinking about what we want it to look like, what format are we going to do it, what sort of areas it should cover.    But that is far as that goes.   We are still in PHASE ONE of a three phase frame work....that is expect to take 2-3 years per phase.

As we move forward we will continue to develop the two tiered functions you mentioned.

And that is part of the problem. Now NCOs have a way to get promoted, but their PD and training is exactly the same as for their officer counterpart. And on top of that, they get to do the exact same staff jobs and to hold the exact same qualifications. In the Air Force, you wouldn't have a SSgt serve as incident commander, but that's possible in CAP. Will that change with the current "plan"? What about section chiefs and branch directors? Or deputy commanders and operations officers? All officer-equivalent functions in the Air Force.

If we're going to have Airmen, NCOs and officers, then their roles must be defined. An NCO should not be able to do what an officer do and vice versa. Otherwise, what's the point? I understand your position. These are baby steps in the right direction. There's a plan in the works. That's the vision for a future CAP. Etc., etc. etc... But officially, we just got a way for NCOs to get promoted, a set of new stripes and some NCOs in key positions pushing down a programs that doesn't exist yet. And this is being "sold" as a way to make CAP "better".

Improving the overall training and PD program would make CAP better. Increasing promotion requirements for officers may make CAP better, but only if grade is linked with specific authority and responsibilities. Ensuring minimum staffing qualifications could make CAP better. Having CAP NCOs? It's no different than having prior service officer. Without the whole program, the pieces we have don't make much of a difference or impact, at least not yet.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 09:44:37 AM
Not yet.   That is the key.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on March 13, 2015, 10:49:22 AM

This should have been kept in developement until fully thought out and not piece mealed together like it is. 

Until simple questions and items are defined there will continue to be push back and the stance this is not needed.

I gently suggest that you have this reversed.  There really is nothing new going on that "needs to be kept in development."

To the contrary, we have had NCOs since CAP began.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  All we are doing is tweaking the program to allow non-prior service NCOs to serve, and allow prior service NCOs to be promoted and enjoy career progression unrelated to their day jobs.

Ned, I see it the way he does. I understand what you are saying, but that version is missing something.

Yes, we had NCO's WHEN CAP began, but that doesn't mean that we have had them SINCE CAP began. There was a reasonably long period within the last 40 years when we had no NCOs. But I'm not just citing history - it's important to look at this from a development standpoint.

NCOs were eliminated in CAP for one simple reason - at the time, CAP determined that there was no need for that structure or those ranks. It really was that simple. So, the NCOs, a mix of prior service and "off the street," became officers, reverted to SM or left. And....CAP didn't suffer because of it.

Years (decades?) later, the structure was PARTIALLY brought back. Not, however, because of any identified organizational need. Rather, the "need" was one created by former military NCOs who did not wish to become officers for various reasons. It was, in essence, a limited accommodation.

So...rather than saying "CAP has ALWAYS had NCOs," it's more accurate to say "CAP  SOMETIMES had NCOs at some stages of existence, and not had them at other stages."

Now, having said all that...now is now. For whatever reason, CAP has decided to bolster/revamp/adjust their posture on NCOs. And, it's true, so let's admit it - this should have all been thought out before being announced, yet alone before being implemented. The committee that Lordmonar mentioned, as dedicated as the members might be, is a horse hitched to the rear of the cart.

Even so, I can see how it happened backwards and I can even support that, for at least one good reason. I believe that this needed some heavy duty USAF support in order to implement it. There would have been no point in doing all of the staff work, only to have SECAF say "No way!" at the end. I think it was important to get it approved in principle first, then work on it.

In my opinion, the root of confusion in this lies in the method of announcement. Had it just been a simple "SECAF approved revitalized NCO program for CAP, folks working on it, stay tuned," that would have made sense. But...that wouldn't have given the biggest supporter of this the opportunity to claim it as his legacy. Hence, hoopla ensued. Lotsa hoopla. "New! Improved! Better! More professional!" The splash was impressive, but you can't start selling the new model year Chevy without actually having some new model year Chevys for the crowd to look at.

As I see it - that's what happened. But none of that matters now, because the historians will be the ones filing that all away. What does matter is this - the CAP of today is developing a modified/changed/updated/revamped/new (choose one or more) NCO program. Good people are working on it.  There's little to be gained by speculating on the result. It will either work or it won't. If it works, CAP will be better off. If it doesn't work, I hope CAP leaders will be wise enough to say so.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 13, 2015, 12:27:03 PM
I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 13, 2015, 12:49:05 PM
I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D

And IIRC he wears two stars...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 01:02:03 PM

I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D
i know you put a smiley on that.   But No.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 13, 2015, 01:43:41 PM

I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D
i know you put a smiley on that.   But No.

Spoken like a true humorless SNCO. Maybe I can get behind the program now!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on March 13, 2015, 02:04:12 PM
I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D

And IIRC he wears two stars...

The problem is though that they designed the ranks and then pushed out a program without any explanation or reason.  How long has this been out there and still nobody knows how its going to work?

Once again, this is going to boil down to "what do i want to wear?  Stripes or bars?"  Because in a Squadron it all comes down to just getting the job done unlike the military where there are defined roles and positions.  So what CAP is going to do is take an already existing program, pull out certain parts of it and say "Here.... these are now NCO jobs."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
Probably.   But that is because those jobs have always been NCO jobs.   One of the problems with the CAP system  as it is now.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 02:19:15 PM
And for the record.   We redesigned the striped because the Air Force told us to.  We asked them if we could expand the program first.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on March 13, 2015, 04:05:36 PM
Probably.   But that is because those jobs have always been NCO jobs.   One of the problems with the CAP system  as it is now.

What problems has it created?  And what problems will it solve by having the same members just wearing a different patch?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 04:58:10 PM
Officers doing officer work and enlisted doing enlisted work?   It would fix that for one.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on March 13, 2015, 05:23:11 PM
Our parent service, our non-military customers, and even our own members just don't look at CAP officers as "real" officers. 
And they NEVER EVER WILL no matter what we do to our system.  Even if we were to only allow former military members to become CAP officers, the real military would still just look upon them as civilian volunteers -- because that is what they would be.  We don't get any credit now for having a significant percentage of our adult members having been in the military and that isn't going to change to matter what system we have. 

I disagree. I'm a current Military Officer and view CAP Officers as different, but no less deserving of respect, for the Rank and positions they earned and hold.

CAP Officers are professionals and I will always treat them as such.

I think you'd be surprised how many current Servicemembers... Officer, NCO, and EM... feel the same way I do.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 13, 2015, 07:28:40 PM
No one has clearly defined what "jobs" are NCO jobs.  And really I don't see what job that CAP NCO can do that is currently being done by any number of officers.  This IMHO is change for the sake of change and really shouldn't have been kicked out until it was fully developed.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 13, 2015, 07:30:59 PM
Officers doing officer work and enlisted doing enlisted work?   It would fix that for one.

Sure, define what is "Officer" work and what is "Enlisted" work and have everybody agree to it.

Good luck...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on March 13, 2015, 08:50:33 PM
Officers doing officer work and enlisted doing enlisted work?   It would fix that for one.

Sure, define what is "Officer" work and what is "Enlisted" work and have everybody agree to it.

Good luck...
Or most of the folks agree to it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on March 13, 2015, 09:00:20 PM
Officers doing officer work and enlisted doing enlisted work?   It would fix that for one.

Sure, define what is "Officer" work and what is "Enlisted" work and have everybody agree to it.

Good luck...

I have been medical my entire military time, so my perspective is somewhat skewed, but at the company grade level and below I am not sure if there is even that great a difference between "officer jobs" and "NCO jobs".  I have seen the same program management responsibility laid at either an officer or an NCO's feet when it comes to managing the people and getting the job done.

That may be the difficulty of the job descriptions idea.  My experience (especially on the AF side) has been the level of "_IC" (NCOIC vs OIC) depends on the level of the job.  At the flight or squadron level it may be an NCO, but at the group or wing level its an OIC.   Lets face it size wise most CAP squadrons are the size of a "flight" (and thats numbers on paper, not actual bodies)

There are very few jobs I think that are only an "NCO" or only an "officer", especially in CAP.  The only way I see that working out is to almost go back to a quota type system.  If your squadron is between 0 and 30 (arbitrary) you arent authorized to fill x, y, z positions any higher than a MSgt.  I suppose if it becomes "harder" to become and promote officers this isnt that big of a deal.

mk
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 09:23:05 PM

No one has clearly defined what "jobs" are NCO jobs.  And really I don't see what job that CAP NCO can do that is currently being done by any number of officers.  This IMHO is change for the sake of change and really shouldn't have been kicked out until it was fully developed.
it is change to position us to make more changes.   With the goal to make CAP better.   At least it is not adding much more admin over head as we move along. Maybe you have to do some paper form 2s for awhile.   But that's about all and we are working on that right now.   If you have real concerns about it up channel the to your region command staff.  They will push them to you region's rep on the committee and we will look at them and deal with them as necessary.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on March 13, 2015, 09:43:57 PM
I think a re-write of 20-1 could get very interesting.
The following sound like they are pretty much officers no matter what:
any commander title
Finance
Medical
Legal
Chaplin
Director Ops
Stan Eval

These ones are a little gray:  it sounds like it should be an officer, but I can see a SNCO depending on the size of the unit
Public affairs
Maintenance
Logistics
Professional Development
AE
ES

The rest sound like it doesnt matter.  A 20-1 change would likely have to change the title for a lot of those to "chief" (not to be confused with E-9) but it is a title I have seen assigned to positions of authority and may or may not be an officer vs NCO in charge.  The other limitation would have to be dependent on the unit type.  A squadron with a plane and pilots (who are traditionally officers vs NCO's) may have to have certain positions only filled by an O, since the people they are responsible for managing are O's.  Units that only manage a GTM level ES program could be specifically NCO run when it comes to ES/SAR/DR positions under an officer DO. 
Not to open a new can of worms, but under ES would certain positions be limited then also by grade?  ie GBD/AOBD "O's" only?  Because that sounds much more an "officer" job than an enlisted one.    Pilots only officers?  What about observers vs scanners? one officer the other not?  Would operations side supervisor qualifications be tied to minimum NCO grades as well, can you be a CUL if you are not a SSgt? otherwise you have to stay as a MRO? (assuming a full realm of "E" grades, otherwise the supervisory level starts at MSgt?) or GTL's vs GTMS for that matter.  I know that traditionally ES jobs havent been tied to grade (because it doesnt mean anything) but if there are now everyday "jobs" that are strictly E vs O because of "specific" skills and knowledge different to grade, how can you not say that applies across the board?

mk
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on March 13, 2015, 10:40:10 PM
^Mark raises excellent points.  It has been said before: for CAP to really have meaningful "officer" and "NCO" grades, a complete overhaul of CAP's training and specialty tracks is necessary.  As civilian volunteers, I think this will be problematic.  For Cadets, the transition from Cadet Airman to Cadet Colonel is based on a general increase in maturity, education, and from follower to leader.  For senior members, this is not the case.  The "backbone of CAP" is an active membership willing to serve.  The spine is not made of a certain "pay grade"; as we all earn the same physical paycheck.  IMHO, it doesn't matter what CAP grade we are assigned; we do a job because we want to. The bling is just extra.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 13, 2015, 11:15:28 PM

No one has clearly defined what "jobs" are NCO jobs.  And really I don't see what job that CAP NCO can do that is currently being done by any number of officers.  This IMHO is change for the sake of change and really shouldn't have been kicked out until it was fully developed.
it is change to position us to make more changes.   With the goal to make CAP better.   At least it is not adding much more admin over head as we move along. Maybe you have to do some paper form 2s for awhile.   But that's about all and we are working on that right now.   If you have real concerns about it up channel the to your region command staff.  They will push them to you region's rep on the committee and we will look at them and deal with them as necessary.

Change for the sake of change and because someone thought it was a good idea.  Outside of the statement "Making CAP" better you have not provided anything to show how it will make CAP better other than it is being worked.  This is something that should have been fully thought out and executed and put to us for buy in than just kicked out.  This is change for the sake of change and cart before the horse.  There is alot of tap dancing and deflecting on this for it to be anything worth supporting.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 13, 2015, 11:32:17 PM

No one has clearly defined what "jobs" are NCO jobs.  And really I don't see what job that CAP NCO can do that is currently being done by any number of officers.  This IMHO is change for the sake of change and really shouldn't have been kicked out until it was fully developed.
it is change to position us to make more changes.   With the goal to make CAP better.   At least it is not adding much more admin over head as we move along. Maybe you have to do some paper form 2s for awhile.   But that's about all and we are working on that right now.   If you have real concerns about it up channel the to your region command staff.  They will push them to you region's rep on the committee and we will look at them and deal with them as necessary.

Change for the sake of change and because someone thought it was a good idea.  Outside of the statement "Making CAP" better you have not provided anything to show how it will make CAP better other than it is being worked.  This is something that should have been fully thought out and executed and put to us for buy in than just kicked out.  This is change for the sake of change and cart before the horse.  There is alot of tap dancing and deflecting on this for it to be anything worth supporting.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I've laid out how I think this positions us to make CAP better.   I could just keep on saying the same thing...and you will keep on saying I have not shown you anything.

Okay.  You don't like the idea...and I do.

Thank you for your input.  If you need guidance on how to implement it at your unit....please get into contact with your wing leadership and request assistance from the region committee rep....(if your wing does not yet have a Command Chief or a Command SNCO yet).


Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on March 13, 2015, 11:41:44 PM
Change for the sake of change and because someone thought it was a good idea.

That someone held the title "National Commander" and was therefore within his prerogative. 

MSgt Harris is acting as I would expect from a SNCO.  He has been given his marching orders and he is carrying them out regardless of his personal opinion.  He is supporting the commander's intent publicly, as I would expect from any leader.  It is clear he does not have all of the answers; nor is it really his position to judge the commander's intent.  The best thing to do now is not to argue with him about the direction, but rather communicate with your wing commanders and have your concerns brought up to the National Commander.  If the National Commander still feels this cause is worthy of the attention and time, then the only thing you can do is salute and drive on.  YMMV.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 14, 2015, 12:00:35 AM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I've laid out how I think this positions us to make CAP better.   I could just keep on saying the same thing...and you will keep on saying I have not shown you anything.

Okay.  You don't like the idea...and I do.

Thank you for your input.  If you need guidance on how to implement it at your unit....please get into contact with your wing leadership and request assistance from the region committee rep....(if your wing does not yet have a Command Chief or a Command SNCO yet).

You have tap danced.  You have not defined enlisted work and officer work.  All you have said is it opens a door, makes advancing as an officer harder.  Provide something a little more solid to grasp than just because or it's being worked. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 14, 2015, 12:01:39 AM
Change for the sake of change and because someone thought it was a good idea.

That someone held the title "National Commander" and was therefore within his prerogative. 

MSgt Harris is acting as I would expect from a SNCO.  He has been given his marching orders and he is carrying them out regardless of his personal opinion.  He is supporting the commander's intent publicly, as I would expect from any leader.  It is clear he does not have all of the answers; nor is it really his position to judge the commander's intent.  The best thing to do now is not to argue with him about the direction, but rather communicate with your wing commanders and have your concerns brought up to the National Commander.  If the National Commander still feels this cause is worthy of the attention and time, then the only thing you can do is salute and drive on.  YMMV.


MSgt Harris is doing what he wants. He wasn't ordered to do this job, he volunteered for it.  And the opinions seen here are his.
If you notice he is the only member of this "committee" who is saying anything. The rest are either staying quiet until the job is done or they don't exist...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 14, 2015, 12:22:05 AM
Change for the sake of change and because someone thought it was a good idea.

That someone held the title "National Commander" and was therefore within his prerogative. 

MSgt Harris is acting as I would expect from a SNCO.  He has been given his marching orders and he is carrying them out regardless of his personal opinion.  He is supporting the commander's intent publicly, as I would expect from any leader.  It is clear he does not have all of the answers; nor is it really his position to judge the commander's intent.  The best thing to do now is not to argue with him about the direction, but rather communicate with your wing commanders and have your concerns brought up to the National Commander.  If the National Commander still feels this cause is worthy of the attention and time, then the only thing you can do is salute and drive on.  YMMV.

And I am questioning something that was not fully thought out, developed and instituted as a good leader should.  You can not expect full public support for intent that is poorly developed, and instituted as this has been. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: MSG Mac on March 14, 2015, 01:09:54 AM
The only problem with the NCO program is that most of the questions that are being asked, don't have answers. I believe that the program was rushed into being to be in place in MG Carr's tenure. which it was! (barely)

But we still don't have a training program separate from the Officer track.
                                   designated roles for the NCO's other than cannot be a Commander
                                   a program to bring new Senior members into CAP as EM/NCO's

                                   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on March 14, 2015, 01:44:58 AM
MSgt Harris is doing what he wants. He wasn't ordered to do this job, he volunteered for it.

Never said he was ordered to be on the committee.  Marching orders include intent, end-state, timelines, and commander's direction. 

Quote
If you notice he is the only member of this "committee" who is saying anything. The rest are either staying quiet until the job is done or they don't exist...

A false dichotomy.  These are not the only two options. 

And I am questioning something that was not fully thought out, developed and instituted as a good leader should.  You can not expect full public support for intent that is poorly developed, and instituted as this has been. 

Never said a good leader should not question orders.  In fact, I even encouraged it.  You are correct that leaders should not expect full public support for certain actions.  However, I would not call this decision one of those.  Considering that our NHQ/CC has been in "office" for seven months, it might be a better option to give him the benefit of the doubt and raise your concerns through official/proper channels.  Perhaps a well-thought and supported letter may elicit the response you are looking for.  Especially since he fell into the creation of the program as it was pushed by Maj Gen Carr.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 14, 2015, 01:53:33 AM
Sir, this is being touted as making CAP better but outside of that nothing. 

This was rushed into place with not much meat behind it other than I want. Give us something more about this and how it's suppose to better is rather than an opinion and that some committee is working on it.  And maybe you'd see benefit of the doubt. 

I still feel that there is not much a CAP NCO can offer the program that is not already being done by CAP officers some of which either currently are NCOs or where NCOs.  The org has functioned without NCOs for awhile now,  what is the signifigance that they are suppose to provide that is currently not being done?

Maybe once that is answered if it is ever answered along with a more thought out program this idea will gain the support and live up to the hype it is seeking.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on March 14, 2015, 03:07:51 AM
I'm a little peeved.

Came back from the movies....saw Cinderella....eh...to this.

Phall......do you think I'm delusional or that I'm lying?  I don't know how to respond to your comments.

That I'm the only one on the committee that is stupid enough to actuall post here on CAPTALK might mean I am delusional....I better check my meds.   

I have conceded...that yes....maybe....this was pushed out the door too soon.   Okay...One for your side.
But let's take a step back.
Lets look at what we have pushed out so far.

We got a promotion system for CAP NCOs.    That's all that we have done so far.   We want do more...but that is all we have in the field right now.

Now....other the the CAPR 20-1 issues......which we are working on.....what is wrong with a promotion system for CAP NCOs?

That in itself is a good thing.   At least for those who have chosen to wear their stripes.   There....we made CAP better.

Where we go from here.    We got the frame work.   When we actually complete phase one....we will start working on phase two.   Phase two includes developing NCO specific PD.  It will include expanded definitions of the roles and functions of an NCO and will show how those will be different from the roles and functions of officers.

Once we got that in place and we are happy with it....then we will start phase three which includes opening up the NCO corps to non-prior service members.

As I have stated before.

We may just stop here.   No harm no foul....we got a promotion system.   
We may just stop at phase two....a separate PD system and roles and functions for NCOs.
We may go all the way.
We may even go farther.

MSG Mac...does bring up a good point.   Yes...there is a limited amount of info out there.   Because frankly....the questions you have asked have no answers at this time.   We either have not addressed them yet....or.........they are in work.

Such as the job descriptions.  I got draft copies of them....but I'm not going to publish them.  a) I'm not sure if I have that authority (I will ask at the next meeting) and b) Until they are in 20-1 they may change.  Giving out erroneous information is worse then not giving out any information.

I would expect.....assuming that they follow the published regulations.....is that any changes to 20-1 would be put out for review during the feed back phase of regulation approval process.   Everyone should have a chance to comment on them when the draft regulation is published.

But that is what I'm talking about....all this taking time.   The committee writes the descriptions, we argue about them, tweak them.   Then it gets briefed to the Command Staff.  If approved....it gets chucked over to the 20-1 guys.   They got look them over, make the changes to the reg...then it has got to get kicked out.   And as I said before....20-1 may be in for a major re-write any ways (I seem to remember from the National Conference someone saying that 20-1 was on the board for a revision).

As far as what happens next...I don't know.  I expect 20-1 and most of the phase one tasks to be complete this summer.  Then comes the big task of creating NCO PD.   Anyone remember how long it took them to do the last re-write of SLS and CLC?   

The org has function WITH NCOs for quite a while now.  I turned in my oak leave for stripes long before I knew anything about this program.   There where around 100 NCO wearing stripes the day the agreement with SECAF was signed.   We had several sitting commanders wearing stripes.   But even if.....we had no NCOs before the signing of the agreement, just because we lived with out NCOs before.....what is wrong with adding them today?   We lived for centuries with out cell phones......does that mean we should never have tried it?   

Listen....I feel your anger and frustration.  I don't understand it....but I feel it.   I know there is an information vacuum and not a lot of guidance.   Message received...and that is my #1 item I'm bringing up next committee meeting. 

I don't know what HYPE you are talking about.  How can there be HYPE if there is no information?   It is my opinion that a viable, professional, active NCO corps in CAP is a good thing.   Do I have proof of this?  No....but I think it can be leveraged to make CAP better.

I reject the term "Change for change's sake".    No one said "Hey it's Thursday....let's create an NCO program!".

I expect (I was not part of the committee back then) that is started out as a conversation about why don't more NCOs choose to keep their stripes.    And the number one reason for that?   IMHO is because there was no way to promote.  Problem identified, problem solved.  Execution maybe a little shaky....but no plan ever survives beyond first contact with reality intact.

That's how things get started.  Someone see a problem....they come up with an idea.....and then you run with them.

So...please anyone......don't complain about execution, or personalities.   Can anyone tell me what is wrong with an NCO promotion system?    Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the idea that NCOs should have their own PD system?   Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the idea that we should let non-prior service members join the NCO corps?

If you got real concerns....let me know.  Better yet....let your wing commander know so it becomes official....and if we need to turn this thing off.....it gets turned off.

Okay...I'm gonna give this thread a rest for awhile......I'll be lurking.   If you really have burning itch to ask me something PM me.   If you need the name of your region rep on the NCO committee PM me.   

Thanks for the input.  Thanks for your service to CAP.

Out
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 14, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
What's sad is that nobody thought "Should we even turn this on yet?" when all they had was a promotion system in place and nothing else. You keep bringing up 100 NCOs as if there aren't tens of thousands Senior Members. Seems like if those 100 wanted to be promoted so bad, they could have pinned Officer rank back on. Now, they can get promoted but have to wait who knows how long for anything else to actually come out.  And don't even have a clear answer about what's different job wise other than "Same jobs most Officers are doing....but now with stripes!"
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Spam on March 14, 2015, 01:08:39 PM
"Listen....I feel your anger and frustration.  I don't understand it....but I feel it.   I know there is an information vacuum and not a lot of guidance.   Message received...and that is my #1 item I'm bringing up next committee meeting". 


To speak to the frustration issue:

I spent this past THU night coaching a new Squadron commander in the mechanics of eServices, WMIRS 2.0, and promotion/reinstatement for prior members. She, a non prior service member and non prior cadet, was over loading with the volume and complexity of our para military structure, mechanisms, tools and procedures, and her unit is suffering.  "Why can't I do this? Where does it tell me how to do that? That's not in the reg! We have to do this because why? How did you learn how to do that", etc. were visibly causing her to age as she realized the complexity of compliance.


The more we incrementally add complexity to CAP, whether it be in arcane personnel procedures, hard to use IT tools, or in the sheer weight and page count of forms and regs, the more we then make it a daunting task for someone new of good will to accept and execute command. 


Modify, simplify, combine where possible SHOULD be the underlying business principle of restructuring CAP to be operable by volunteers without a prior career as military or without decades in CAP. From the perspective of the vast majority of volunteer members, I believe changes to add complexity and page count merely make life hard, make accepting command a more daunting proposition, and tend to suppress volunteerism. Where complexity is added to benefit less than a fraction of a percent of members, the cumulative frustration bubbles over a bit, as you see here.


So, a few pages here, a few paragraphs there, another module in eServices tucked away in a structure.  A small change to make CAP better (somehow). Death by a thousand cuts, not with a bang but a whimper.


V/R,
Spam


Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 14, 2015, 03:18:38 PM
I'm a little peeved.

Came back from the movies....saw Cinderella....eh...to this.

Phall......do you think I'm delusional or that I'm lying?  I don't know how to respond to your comments.

That I'm the only one on the committee that is stupid enough to actuall post here on CAPTALK might mean I am delusional....I better check my meds.   

I have conceded...that yes....maybe....this was pushed out the door too soon.   Okay...One for your side.
But let's take a step back.
Lets look at what we have pushed out so far.

We got a promotion system for CAP NCOs.    That's all that we have done so far.   We want do more...but that is all we have in the field right now.

Now....other the the CAPR 20-1 issues......which we are working on.....what is wrong with a promotion system for CAP NCOs?

That in itself is a good thing.   At least for those who have chosen to wear their stripes.   There....we made CAP better.

Where we go from here.    We got the frame work.   When we actually complete phase one....we will start working on phase two.   Phase two includes developing NCO specific PD.  It will include expanded definitions of the roles and functions of an NCO and will show how those will be different from the roles and functions of officers.

Once we got that in place and we are happy with it....then we will start phase three which includes opening up the NCO corps to non-prior service members.

As I have stated before.

We may just stop here.   No harm no foul....we got a promotion system.   
We may just stop at phase two....a separate PD system and roles and functions for NCOs.
We may go all the way.
We may even go farther.

MSG Mac...does bring up a good point.   Yes...there is a limited amount of info out there.   Because frankly....the questions you have asked have no answers at this time.   We either have not addressed them yet....or.........they are in work.

Such as the job descriptions.  I got draft copies of them....but I'm not going to publish them.  a) I'm not sure if I have that authority (I will ask at the next meeting) and b) Until they are in 20-1 they may change.  Giving out erroneous information is worse then not giving out any information.

I would expect.....assuming that they follow the published regulations.....is that any changes to 20-1 would be put out for review during the feed back phase of regulation approval process.   Everyone should have a chance to comment on them when the draft regulation is published.

But that is what I'm talking about....all this taking time.   The committee writes the descriptions, we argue about them, tweak them.   Then it gets briefed to the Command Staff.  If approved....it gets chucked over to the 20-1 guys.   They got look them over, make the changes to the reg...then it has got to get kicked out.   And as I said before....20-1 may be in for a major re-write any ways (I seem to remember from the National Conference someone saying that 20-1 was on the board for a revision).

As far as what happens next...I don't know.  I expect 20-1 and most of the phase one tasks to be complete this summer.  Then comes the big task of creating NCO PD.   Anyone remember how long it took them to do the last re-write of SLS and CLC?   

The org has function WITH NCOs for quite a while now.  I turned in my oak leave for stripes long before I knew anything about this program.   There where around 100 NCO wearing stripes the day the agreement with SECAF was signed.   We had several sitting commanders wearing stripes.   But even if.....we had no NCOs before the signing of the agreement, just because we lived with out NCOs before.....what is wrong with adding them today?   We lived for centuries with out cell phones......does that mean we should never have tried it?   

Listen....I feel your anger and frustration.  I don't understand it....but I feel it.   I know there is an information vacuum and not a lot of guidance.   Message received...and that is my #1 item I'm bringing up next committee meeting. 

I don't know what HYPE you are talking about.  How can there be HYPE if there is no information?   It is my opinion that a viable, professional, active NCO corps in CAP is a good thing.   Do I have proof of this?  No....but I think it can be leveraged to make CAP better.

I reject the term "Change for change's sake".    No one said "Hey it's Thursday....let's create an NCO program!".

I expect (I was not part of the committee back then) that is started out as a conversation about why don't more NCOs choose to keep their stripes.    And the number one reason for that?   IMHO is because there was no way to promote.  Problem identified, problem solved.  Execution maybe a little shaky....but no plan ever survives beyond first contact with reality intact.

That's how things get started.  Someone see a problem....they come up with an idea.....and then you run with them.

So...please anyone......don't complain about execution, or personalities.   Can anyone tell me what is wrong with an NCO promotion system?    Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the idea that NCOs should have their own PD system?   Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the idea that we should let non-prior service members join the NCO corps?

If you got real concerns....let me know.  Better yet....let your wing commander know so it becomes official....and if we need to turn this thing off.....it gets turned off.

Okay...I'm gonna give this thread a rest for awhile......I'll be lurking.   If you really have burning itch to ask me something PM me.   If you need the name of your region rep on the NCO committee PM me.   

Thanks for the input.  Thanks for your service to CAP.

Out

This is probably your most reasonable and detailed explanation of this program and the process used to develop and implement it. Thank you.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: CAP_truth on March 14, 2015, 05:01:50 PM
My 2 cents worth. I see a problem with the NCO program requiring former military NCO waiting 6 months before they can be promoted in CAP. They should be promoted immediately upon completion of Level I training.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 14, 2015, 06:08:58 PM
I disagree. I think prior service officers should have to wait 6 moths as well. In addition, they should be required to complete the corresponding PD level within a set period of time in order to keep their grades.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 14, 2015, 08:42:09 PM
OK, just for arguements sake, why the six month wait?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: The14th on March 14, 2015, 09:22:42 PM
OK, just for arguements sake, why the six month wait?

Because CAP isn't the military and new members should have to actually learn about the programs and how it's different from the military.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 15, 2015, 02:15:35 PM
Interestingly, even the armed forces don't seem to have a good, definitive statement about the differences between officer, enlisted, and NCO roles beyond some general statements about managers and supervisors versus "do'ers."

At least that my meager Google-fu powers can discover.   ;)

And yet, it is a concept that is clearly understood by anyone who has been in the military longer than 10 minutes.  I ran into a similar issue when I was researching military "intensity levels" for CP.  There appear to be some things that military folks find so intuitive that they don't spend much time writing it down.  Or debating it.

The military does spend some time talking about initial entrance requirements being different (which wouldn't have good applicability to CAP where our officer requirements are pretty much just a pulse and a GED), but even they acknowledge that a lot of enlisted folks have college degrees.

But beyond that, not to much that I can find. 

Like I said, interesting. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on March 15, 2015, 11:53:47 PM
Col Lee,  have you tried looking for AFI36-218?  It breaks down the enlisted side rather well.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Tim Medeiros on March 16, 2015, 04:19:51 AM
Col Lee,  have you tried looking for AFI36-218?  It breaks down the enlisted side rather well.
If you're talking about the little brown book, I think you mean AFI 36-2618


For those interested, enjoy: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2618/afi36-2618.pdf (http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2618/afi36-2618.pdf)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on March 16, 2015, 07:17:59 AM
It's ultimatley going to come down to individual unit staffing.  If a unit has enough people to play the part then they will play the part. If they don't, which most won't, LTC's will still take out the trash and stock the fridge. 
Do enlisted have to stand morning formation while the officers saunter in to their offiices?   When we go to encampments do the enlisted E5 and below have to be check in by 2200 but E6 + and officers onky have to be back by morning formation?   Again, I don't care what you put on paper, unlike the military we don't have staffing levels.   People do the jobs they are interested in or they don't come back.  A CAP SMSgt is really going to answer to a 1yr CAP 2Lt?  Yeah, Ok.  Pop the popcorn. Can CAP officers be married to CAP NCOs? hmmmmmmm......  Much of what makes the military successful is that officer vs enlisted is a distinct way of life.  In CAP it's not.  Anyway..... run with it. It's obviously someone's baby. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on March 16, 2015, 10:45:27 AM
Our rank is too easy?  Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s?  Your statement is a [darn] insult to many a good man that is no longer with us.  Their job was a heck of a lot more important than what CAP does.  I find that statement totally reprehensible.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on March 16, 2015, 12:41:53 PM
Our rank is too easy? 

Reasonable minds differ on this.  Some folks would say "yes," and others "no."  It is certainly a worthy topic of discussion if we can do so in a respectful manner.  Especially in the context of a discussion board, we should be able to discuss any aspect of CAP.  Nothing should be "off limits."  Wouldn't you agree?

Quote
Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s? 

After your comment, I spent some time trying to figure that out, but couldn't find much information.  (I've already confessed to my weak on-line research skills in this thread.)

I did find a reference on Snopes (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=45124) that talked about how the "high mortality rate of 2LTs in VN" wisdom appears to be unsupported by any evidence.

And I also found a reference on Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_life_expecantcy_of_a_second_Lieutenant_in_Vietnam) that suggests that there were relatively few 2LT platoon leaders in VN because most were promoted to 1LT upon arrival in-country.

Neither is authoritative, of course, and neither speaks directly to your point. 

But personally I have little doubt that many young lieutenants died bravely in that war. 

I'm just not sure how that relates to grade in CAP.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on March 16, 2015, 03:14:26 PM
Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s? 

After your comment, I spent some time trying to figure that out, but couldn't find much information.  (I've already confessed to my weak on-line research skills in this thread.)

Not that many really.  There were 806 O-1 officers killed in direct combat in Vietnam.  496 were Army, 18 were Navy, 8 were Air Force, 284 were Marine Corps, 0 were Coast Guard. 

Interestingly, there were only 64 battlefield commissions during the Vietnam War.  62 were Marines and 2 were Air Force, which were given during their captivity and then endorsed by the DoD.  The Army did not give any battlefield commissions. 

However, as far as I can tell, there was no breakdown of officers that held GEDs that were killed in Vietnam.

Our rank is too easy?  Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s?  Your statement is a [darn] insult to many a good man that is no longer with us.  Their job was a heck of a lot more important than what CAP does.  I find that statement totally reprehensible.   

There were many good "officers" that were killed in wars with less than GEDs.  Some having never had any education.  So by your logic, should CAP also accept adults that have no HS diplomas or GEDs for 2d Lt?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on March 16, 2015, 05:12:46 PM
Our rank is too easy?  Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s?  Your statement is a [darn] insult to many a good man that is no longer with us.  Their job was a heck of a lot more important than what CAP does.  I find that statement totally reprehensible.

Well.......It took me 17 years to make Lt. in the Sheriffs Department  >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 16, 2015, 06:52:35 PM

Our rank is too easy?  Six months and a GED and you have a 2Lt?  Do you know how many good men died in Viet Nam with six months and a GED as 2Lt.s?  Your statement is a [darn] insult to many a good man that is no longer with us.  Their job was a heck of a lot more important than what CAP does.  I find that statement totally reprehensible.

How? CAP is not the military and did not participate in Vietnam. The Colonel was referring to CAP members. How do you construe that as an insult to our service members?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on March 18, 2015, 03:01:46 AM
It is too easy to become a Lt Col in CAP.

One of the reasons our parent organization, our customers and our selves....look down on our rank structure is....because it is too easy.  A GED and six months and you are a Lt.

If we (by that I mean CAP Leadership) wish to make becoming an officer harder, and promoting up the Officer ranks more in line with "real" officers......then we need to have an avenue for those who can't or won't make the grade to continue to serve.

But we aren't "real" officers (at least while serving in CAP).  We're civilian volunteers.  Even if you made it "harder" to become an officer in CAP... we still wouldn't be "real" officers.  We still wouldn't have any authority over anybody in the RealMilitary(tm).  Military personnel wouldn't be required to salute us.  We would not be subject to UCMJ.

The only thing we would achieve would be to cut down on the numbers of CAP officers.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on March 18, 2015, 07:36:14 AM
But we aren't "real" officers (at least while serving in CAP). 

We are, in fact, real CAP officers.  Nothing more is needed. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on March 18, 2015, 07:44:51 AM
But we aren't "real" officers (at least while serving in CAP). 

We are, in fact, real CAP officers.  Nothing more is needed.

Thus the point(less) of this whole thread..... >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on March 18, 2015, 01:15:54 PM
But we aren't "real" officers (at least while serving in CAP). 

We are, in fact, real CAP officers.  Nothing more is needed.

Which is true, but as several have have pointed out, many agencies (ie the Military, Police, Fire, EMA, etc.) and/or their personnel don't view CAP Officers as... peers... for lack of a better word.

Base that on a lack of knowledge of CAP, a lack of professionalism by some CAP members (actually a rarity I believe), the lack of a degreed education (ie the GED 2LT mentioned above)  or hundred other reasons that we can think of.

The fact is progression in rank within CAP can actually be very quick, in comparison to these agencies. As Flying Pig pointed out, 17 years to make LT is forever in CAP terms but for many Police agencies, that's the norm.

Look at the Military, four years of college, a commissioning source (ROTC, OCS, or Academy), a Branch Officer Basic Course, and then two years in grade before they promote to 1LT/LTJG and are considered proficient in their duties.

So is it wrong to say that CAP has "too many Officers" or that CAP is "top heavy in Field Grade Officers"? In most CAP members' minds... no, but outside looking in, they can make the point.

Does building a CAP NCO Corps change that preconception? Maybe.

If CAP does a shift in which members start as CAP Airmen and progress thru Enlisted to NCO ranks, instead of jumping straight to 2LT, it really could change that.

There will be a place for Officers of course, but having a broad base of Enlisted and NCOs as the "body" of CAP makes much more sense to those outsiders looking in.

The problem will be when that change comes (if it ever does), will be what to do with the Officer Corps that already exists.

Grandfather them? Convert them to Warrant/Flight Officers? Convert them to Enlisted/NCO ranks? Do nothing?

Things that make you go hmmm.  ;)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on March 18, 2015, 01:59:54 PM
Quote
Which is true, but as several have have pointed out, many agencies (ie the Military, Police, Fire, EMA, etc.) and/or their personnel don't view CAP Officers as... peers... for lack of a better word.
They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 

See how that works? 

We're different organizations with different rules except in the one area where it matters -- ES .  We all follow (more or less) the same ICS rules and training programs.  When we interact with these other agencies 99% of the time it is in relation to ES.  So, unless you want to tie rank to ES quals (something I'm actually in favor of).....



Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on March 18, 2015, 02:01:47 PM
Quote
Which is true, but as several have have pointed out, many agencies (ie the Military, Police, Fire, EMA, etc.) and/or their personnel don't view CAP Officers as... peers... for lack of a better word.
They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 

It's like when you see some small-county sheriff in uniform.  The entire department has 5 officers, but, by God, his collar has stars on it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on March 18, 2015, 02:02:01 PM
Base that on a lack of knowledge of CAP, a lack of professionalism by some CAP members (actually a rarity I believe), the lack of a degreed education (ie the GED 2LT mentioned above)  or hundred other reasons that we can think of.

What's wrong with a GED?  Considering the sad state of today's High School education, I personally have more respect for somebody with a GED (as it show that they went out and made an effort to actually learn the material and pass the GED test) as opposed to just occupy space in a High School chair.  Most GED-holders aren't stupid, they simply had to drop out of High School because of circumstances in their life.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on March 18, 2015, 03:40:50 PM
Nothing wrong with a GED, for that level of education.

The Military requires a BS/BA degree to be commissioned. To be competitive for Field Grade promotions you should have Masters.

Most police agencies today require a AS in criminal justice (or higher) to walk in the door.

While I concur with your thoughts on a High School education, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on March 18, 2015, 08:44:12 PM
Nothing wrong with a GED, for that level of education.

The Military requires a BS/BA degree to be commissioned. To be competitive for Field Grade promotions you should have Masters.

Most police agencies today require a AS in criminal justice (or higher) to walk in the door.

While I concur with your thoughts on a High School education, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

Far too many organizations treat a BA/BS as some kind of magic.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on March 19, 2015, 12:50:55 AM
Ironically enough this discussion came up at work today.  One of my co-workers was telling me that her daughter was trying to get more hours at the Taco Bell that just opened up in town so she could make a dent in paying off her school loans for her BA in Social Work.  Her son, with a BS in Communications, isn't much better, selling mobile phones in the mall.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Private Investigator on March 19, 2015, 04:25:32 AM
Nothing wrong with a GED, for that level of education.

The Military requires a BS/BA degree to be commissioned. To be competitive for Field Grade promotions you should have Masters.

Most police agencies today require a AS in criminal justice (or higher) to walk in the door.

While I concur with your thoughts on a High School education, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

Far too many organizations treat a BA/BS as some kind of magic.

It depends on if you are talking about "Jack in the Box" or your local "police department". An extra large #1 combo is a no brainer. For the PD I got 187 reasons why education is a big plus.   8)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on March 19, 2015, 07:43:18 AM

They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 


The USAF's PJs and their Rescue Squadrons would like a word with you!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on March 19, 2015, 11:38:44 PM

They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 


The USAF's PJs and their Rescue Squadrons would like a word with you!

I believe that was a bit of turn-about sarcasm.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on March 20, 2015, 12:04:24 AM

They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 


The USAF's PJs and their Rescue Squadrons would like a word with you!

I believe that was a bit of turn-about sarcasm.

If it was, it was a pretty big stretch...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on March 20, 2015, 12:05:35 AM
Yea...read as sarcasm when posted...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on March 20, 2015, 06:59:26 AM
And the PJ comment was as well. I knew where you were coming from. I guess I'll "/s" for sarcasm as well.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on March 20, 2015, 04:38:01 PM
Quote
Which is true, but as several have have pointed out, many agencies (ie the Military, Police, Fire, EMA, etc.) and/or their personnel don't view CAP Officers as... peers... for lack of a better word.
They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 

It's like when you see some small-county sheriff in uniform.  The entire department has 5 officers, but, by God, his collar has stars on it.

Oh, get over it. It's not like he is insisting on being addressed as "general." It's just a designation device when used in that context.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on March 21, 2015, 07:33:54 AM
It is still misleading...
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on March 21, 2015, 09:12:08 AM
How so? They're wearing the uniform of a law enforcement officer.  In our case, we're wearing a military-style uniform with military-style grade insignias and titles. In almost every organization out there, a colonel outranks a lieutenant every time. That's not the case with CAP where a lieutenant can command officers of higher grades.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: USAFRiggerGuy on April 02, 2015, 07:09:52 PM

They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 


The USAF's PJs and their Rescue Squadrons would like a word with you!

Agreed... As a NCOIC for a Rigger shop that directly supported the PJs I couldn't agree more with you.... I think they know a thing or 10 about Aerial ops....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 02, 2015, 08:36:29 PM
Lighten up, Francis.

I think it's been pretty well established that the comment was sarcasm.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 02, 2015, 09:10:22 PM
Quote
Which is true, but as several have have pointed out, many agencies (ie the Military, Police, Fire, EMA, etc.) and/or their personnel don't view CAP Officers as... peers... for lack of a better word.
They're not our peers.  They don't know the first thing about organizing an aerial search.  They're just a bunch of posers wearing rank that looks like ours and thinking they're just as good as us at our job. 

It's like when you see some small-county sheriff in uniform.  The entire department has 5 officers, but, by God, his collar has stars on it.

Oh, get over it. It's not like he is insisting on being addressed as "general." It's just a designation device when used in that context.

Those stars the small county sheriff wears mean nothing outside of his organization.   Stars have long been used to signify the head of the LE agency in law enforcement regardless of the size of the department.  Your comparison is not relevant to the argument you are trying to make. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 12, 2015, 11:26:32 PM
Just got back from Wing Conference and some NCO stuff was discussed.  Phase III has not been affirmed as of yet.  CAP will probably require 4 year degrees to become an officer.  Of around 3,000 Ex-NCO's in CAP only 80-85 have decided to go with NCO rank,  We had an E-6 that was there wearing a long sleeve blue shirt that was way too tight on him.  Looked like Smilin' Jack's buddy from the old strip.  He also had some type of Navy warfare wing thing over his ribbons.  When I asked why he wanted to be an NCO instead of Officer, his answer was "to be different".  He did inquire in a command class as to why he couldn't be in a command position.  This continues to look like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 12, 2015, 11:50:07 PM
3,000 sounds low. It's probably under-reported.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 13, 2015, 12:17:17 AM
4 year degrees for CAP officer?  Why the change?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: abdsp51 on April 13, 2015, 01:31:31 AM
4 year degrees for CAP officer?  Why the change?

Rumor until something official comes down. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 01:39:26 AM
4 year degrees for CAP officer?  Why the change?

Rumor until something official comes down.
As a member of the NCO Committee....I can definitively say this rumor.    We are not even out of Phase I yet....so any long term changes to the officer corps are way too premature to be speculating yet.

I can say.....that one of the whole reasons for the NCO corps is to beef up the officer corps....but like I said...that's years down the road if at all.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 13, 2015, 08:13:49 AM
Cool..... so you'll need a degree to be the 2Lt who stocks the fridge for the cadet snack bar  :clap:
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2015, 08:17:46 AM
4 year degrees for CAP officer?  Why the change?

It's called "credentialism".

One nice thing about working in the IT business is that there's precious little of it.  Lots of folks with just High School can rise to senior positions in IT companies based on, you know, doing stuff, instead of a piece of paper on the wall.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 13, 2015, 09:17:56 AM
That concept is creeping into every profession.   Not to mention in police work.  You couldnt find a wanted parolee if the guy tossed his own wanted poster in your drivers side window and brought his own hand cuffs.... but dang it... you have a Masters in Crim from an online school.

Again, I know it was said above that this is a rumor.  But I don't see it as far fetched.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 13, 2015, 09:45:14 AM
Maybe a degree requirement could be a good thing. With an officer corps meeting the same educational standards as USAF, that could open SOS and ACSC as career progression requirements. Makes it tougher to say "Oh, THOSE guys..." when CAP people are coming closer to matching NG officers I'm selection and PD (except for pay).  Physical and age would be harder to match up, but those would be easiest to let slide.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: catrulz on April 13, 2015, 12:18:26 PM
Of around 3,000 Ex-NCO's in CAP only 80-85 have decided to go with NCO rank,

So, lets say you get out of the service as an E-5 (about average for a single term of military service).  You join CAP, and after 13-15 years your Level 4 or Level 5 and a Major or Lt Col, your going to go back and be an E5 again?  I would make the general assumption that a CAP SSgt is a Level I/II low experience member.  I think its important to most CAP members to be seen as knowledgeable, and experienced (especially when they are).

Only 85 took advantage of the program, because that was probably the number of former Master Sergeants (of all grades).  The fault with Phase I of the NCO program, was it had no incentive to get Level IV and V personnel to jump back to NCO grades. 

However, I do see more NCO's than ever in the program, there are 3 in my group alone, and I know there are at least 5 in the wing.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 01:44:28 PM
We got a proposal (suggested by someone here (not me)) floating through the approval chain right now to address that issue.

Basically it takes your original military grade and runs it through a matrix of CAP PD and rank....to come up with an advanced NCO rank.

Nothing approved yet...but it was moved up out of the committee to the command level.  So we will see if it goes through.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 13, 2015, 02:19:09 PM
I believe Phase III has to do with new civilian members joining and after 6 months or so becoming NCO's.  The whole training track requirements are still beyond comprehension.  This means with the college requirements, you may have mission pilots that are NCO's.  So we are scrapping the whole system for the ego of 85 NCO's and an ex-National Commander.  The Air Force may be trying to get us in alignment with them, but they seem to forget we are VOLUNTEERS and they may very well cause the program to go away or become so small it is no longer valid.  I guess the next thing will be either up or out?  Most people do this to take their mind off their daily job, not add more stress to it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Av8tion on April 13, 2015, 02:26:35 PM
Just some food for thought that with the new promotion regulations, the timetable for promotions in the officer grades is nearly identical to that of the Air Force. Allow me to demonstrate below

New -> 2d Lt = 6mo TIG/TIS for CAP, OTS is about 10 weeks
2d LT -> 1st Lt = 18mo TIG = 2 years TIS for CAP = 2 years TIG/TIS for USAF
1st Lt -> Capt = 30mo TIG = 4y 6mo TIS for CAP, 2 years TIG = 4 years TIS for USAF
Capt -> Maj = 4 years TIG = 8y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 10y TIS for USAF
Maj -> Lt Col = 5 years TIG = 13y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 13-15y TIS for USAF

As you can see, it's not "quick" or "easy" to advance in officer grade in CAP. Now the only thing they need to do is expand the CAP enlisted program to allow all new members to go down that road if they so desire.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 13, 2015, 02:47:57 PM
I believe Phase III has to do with new civilian members joining and after 6 months or so becoming NCO's.  The whole training track requirements are still beyond comprehension.  This means with the college requirements, you may have mission pilots that are NCO's.  So we are scrapping the whole system for the ego of 85 NCO's and an ex-National Commander.  The Air Force may be trying to get us in alignment with them, but they seem to forget we are VOLUNTEERS and they may very well cause the program to go away or become so small it is no longer valid.  I guess the next thing will be either up or out?  Most people do this to take their mind off their daily job, not add more stress to it.

You have a problem with this?  >:D

I find it entertaining we are having our best and brightest work this important issue.  It's only taken a couple of years to make it this far.  I think it will take a while for the whole program to be completed.  I hope the time and effort taken will benefit CAP with a membership that is better able to handle our missions, and an organization growing larger and stronger.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
I believe Phase III has to do with new civilian members joining and after 6 months or so becoming NCO's.  The whole training track requirements are still beyond comprehension.  This means with the college requirements, you may have mission pilots that are NCO's.  So we are scrapping the whole system for the ego of 85 NCO's and an ex-National Commander.  The Air Force may be trying to get us in alignment with them, but they seem to forget we are VOLUNTEERS and they may very well cause the program to go away or become so small it is no longer valid.  I guess the next thing will be either up or out?  Most people do this to take their mind off their daily job, not add more stress to it.
That may not be the case.....Phase III of the NCO program is to let no prior service members be NCOs.

What we do with the officers in not directly part of our charter....as I have said before....we may not even get to Phase III or we may.   That is way down the road.

And none of this has to do with EGO.  It has to do with making CAP better.  Whether this works or not, remains to be seen.  But it is not just because "we" wanted to to stroke our egos.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 13, 2015, 03:34:58 PM
So far nobody has explained how it's going to make CAP any better.  You are still going to have the same people doing the same jobs. The rank on their uniform won't change any of it.  Ultimatley the job will get done by whoever has the time in their day to run down to the Sq building and do it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 03:41:20 PM
So far nobody has explained how it's going to make CAP any better.  You are still going to have the same people doing the same jobs. The rank on their uniform won't change any of it.  Ultimatley the job will get done by whoever has the time in their day to run down to the Sq building and do it.
On one level you are correct.   As the many thread about rank have pointed out.

But we do have rank....and rank means something to our parent organisation and our customers.   Something different then what it means to us and our organisation.

My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

If the cost of changing out weighs any benifits it may bring....then we can always stop....no harm done.

YMMV
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: almostspaatz on April 13, 2015, 04:32:09 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 13, 2015, 04:39:30 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)

Organization and Organisation are both spelled correctly.  One is US and the other is UK.  I use acknowledgements as opposed to acknowledgments.

Although the -ize is the original UK method of spelling and is the recommended form in the Oxford Dictionary.  The -ise form is due to French influence on England, and thus Britain and the UK.  However, it is still recognized in the UK as a correct spelling.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2015, 04:50:14 PM
My thinking is that if we make our ranks more like our parent organisation.....we can improve our relationship with that organisation.

*Organization  ;)

Organization and Organisation are both spelled correctly.  One is US and the other is UK.  I use acknowledgements as opposed to acknowledgments.

Although the -ize is the original UK method of spelling and is the recommended form in the Oxford Dictionary.  The -ise form is due to French influence on England, and thus Britain and the UK.  However, it is still recognized in the UK as a correct spelling.

I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 13, 2015, 04:54:28 PM
I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.

Oy.  Bloody hell people.  I got called out in class I was teaching for saying that.  :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2015, 04:55:58 PM
I still pronounce the "F" in lieutenant.

Oy.  Bloody hell people.  I got called out in class I was teaching for saying that.  :)

I had an Lt Col once ask me "OK, where's the 'F' in lieutenant?"  My response:  "Where's the 'R' in colonel, sir?"
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 13, 2015, 05:32:19 PM
sorry no spell checker on this computer.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 13, 2015, 06:48:51 PM

Just some food for thought that with the new promotion regulations, the timetable for promotions in the officer grades is nearly identical to that of the Air Force. Allow me to demonstrate below

New -> 2d Lt = 6mo TIG/TIS for CAP, OTS is about 10 weeks
2d LT -> 1st Lt = 18mo TIG = 2 years TIS for CAP = 2 years TIG/TIS for USAF
1st Lt -> Capt = 30mo TIG = 4y 6mo TIS for CAP, 2 years TIG = 4 years TIS for USAF
Capt -> Maj = 4 years TIG = 8y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 10y TIS for USAF
Maj -> Lt Col = 5 years TIG = 13y 6mo TIS for CAP, approx 13-15y TIS for USAF

As you can see, it's not "quick" or "easy" to advance in officer grade in CAP. Now the only thing they need to do is expand the CAP enlisted program to allow all new members to go down that road if they so desire.

I think you need to recheck the requirements for Air Force officer promotions again.

2d Lt - USAFA (4 years) or AFROTC ( 2-4 years) or OTS (12 weeks full-time) at OTS. All require a Bachelor's Degree and have a competitive selection process.

1st Lt - 2 years TIG/TIS. All officers attend some form of technical school. Some can be up to a year long.

Capt - 2 years TIG/4 years TIG. Expected to be proficient at their job. Many are supervisors or instructors in their fields.

Maj - 7 years TIG/11 years TIS (unless below the zone). SOS * (8 weeks full-time).

Lt Col - 7 years TIG/18 years TIS (unless below the zone). ACSC * (1 year).

* Both SOS and ACSC have a competitive selection process. Most officers complete the correspondence/online course before they can be selected for the course in residence. These all have test, essays, etc. and must be passed, not just participate in.

Both Maj and Lt Col require a Promotion Board selection process. In addition to performance reports for the previous years, the Promotion Board looks at duty positions, responsibilities and accomplishments, higher headquarters level assignments (group, wing, etc.), deployments, exercises, medals, other schools, joint assignments, etc. In the past, a Master's Degree has been required for Lt Col. It is very competitive and selection is not guaranteed, even if meeting all minimum requirements.

To say that PD progression or promotion in CAP is "nearly identical to that of the Air Force" is very inaccurate. They're not even close.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Av8tion on April 13, 2015, 08:37:30 PM

To say that PD progression or promotion in CAP is "nearly identical to that of the Air Force" is very inaccurate. They're not even close.

I said the timetable is nearly identical, not the requirements... and when it comes to the minimum possible time you can get to each grade it is reasonably close, not exact. The requirements are different, tailored to the respective organizations. College degree requirements will most likely never work its way into CAP and will probably fall away from military officer requirements in the future as people are now beginning to realize that a college education isn't nearly as important (or affordable) as it was decades ago. Training and experience is far more important than a piece of paper.

Anyway, enough of my rant... the best thing we all can do is to make sure our senior members are properly mentored and trained to do the jobs they've volunteered to do. It doesn't take a piece of paper from a college or a shiny piece of hardware on your shoulder boards. All it takes is a senior member who is willing to learn and work, and a senior member willing and able to tech him/her how to do the job right. I think we may have lost sight of all of that with the whole promotion system argument. Once the basics are established, the rest will fall in line. As for the rest, we'll just have to trust National to not come up with something idiotic to ruin everything we've worked toward.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 13, 2015, 09:36:18 PM
BA as the only path to officer status in CAP disturbs me (and I have advanced degrees, so it's not personal!)

BA or some combination of experience & training (military, CAP, perhaps even business/professional), I could see doing.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 14, 2015, 08:01:25 AM
I don't necessarily favor that a bachelor's degree be required for a CAP officer appointment, but there's no disputing that it's extremely easy to become a 2d Lt in CAP. I think tightening the requirements to become an officer could be a good thing, especially if other paths to membership are available to those who otherwise wouldn't meet the requirements to become a CAP officer.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on April 14, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
As far as the military goes, the degree=commission will not be going away.  Over the past 20 years they have been tightening those requirements more and more and are not likely to reverse that.  Even SNCO's are being looked at to have an associates to promote beyond E-7 (USAF).

Mostly its a universal check box on learning ( presence is enough in most cases to graduate high school, a degree requires effort?)

I would think an associates would be enough to meet the letter of intent for 2lt to Capt in CAP.

MK
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 14, 2015, 09:30:31 AM
That's interesting.   I've held most positions in CAP, mission pilot, CFI,  Sq Commander, etc.   8 year, military  vet.   I'm a command staff level law enforcement officer, chief pilot of a unit with 7 aircraft and 6 full time pilots and mech's..... But I wouldn't qualify to be a CAP 2Lt. :). Exactly what type of "officer" is CAp trying to attract?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2015, 10:23:12 AM
I think the degree for 2nd Lt for CAP is yet another example of a solution in desperate search of a problem.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2015, 10:26:11 AM
I would think an associates would be enough to meet the letter of intent for 2lt to Capt in CAP.

Why?

What would some random degree provide to CAP in terms of some skillset that is relevant?

I know a number of senior executives in companies, and excellent field-grade and above officers in CAP, who have no degree of any kind. 

Sorry, but if you ask me, it's just another example of "credentialism" with no actual basis in tangible benefits.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 14, 2015, 11:31:04 AM
IMHO, there is no reason why a degree is necessary for any CAP grade, however proven training and experience in a certain field should be a requirement for any specific position.  Management skills can be learned anywhere.  Leadership skills are something that can be nurtured in any proper environment.  Mission specific skills can be learned and honed with appropriate apprenticeships and mentoring.  Why we are even discussing a need for a degree to obtain "officer" grade is incomprehensible.  CAP has enough problems with recruitment and retention.  Requiring degrees, to me, is a non-starter.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 14, 2015, 12:17:16 PM
Requiring NCO's is a non-starter to me....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on April 14, 2015, 12:34:14 PM
The "minimum qualifications for various CAP officer grades" is, and should be, an ongoing discussion for us.

Any conversation about requiring an associate or higher degree for CAP officer status is always going to provoke sincere and strongly-held opinions.  Because, much like a typical CAP uniform discussion, it gets personal very quickly.

There are strong points to be made on each side.  Aligning ourselves more closely with our AF colleagues and raising our standards for officer status beyond a GED are certainly worthy arguments.

Similarly, there is little doubt that many, many strong and capable American leaders have had little or no college education.  Telling Richard Branson, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates that they do not qualify to be a CAP officer would be an interesting conversation.  Ditto for Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln.

Ultimately, -- just like with the h/w issues on AF-style uniforms --  I suspect folks will tend to line up on the issue based on their personal status.  Those with a degree with tend to agree that college should be required, and those without that particular piece of paper on the wall will tend to disagree.

And just like a uniform discussion, the responses will be heartfelt and passionate. 

(And just like the uniform discussion, no one will be able to convince anyone on the other side.)

Bottom line: we have an existing system.  Folks who want to change the status quo bear the burden of convincing the leadership of the wisdom and advantage of their position.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JayT on April 14, 2015, 12:37:04 PM
The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets. Many people here can't wait to pound their chests and shout from the mountaintops about how important CAP is to the Air Force, but when a proposal to align its structure and promotion system to better mirror the organization who's uniform many people so enjoy wearing is made, nobody seems to want to loose their earned grade because "I'm a captain, and I don't need no fancy degree to make me that way."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 14, 2015, 01:27:40 PM
Excellent words, Ned.

Ditto for Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln.

Yes it would be interesting to tell Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln they could not be CAP officers.  Although, I am pretty sure, not having a pulse would be the first disqualifier in that conversation :)

Although, Lincoln would not qualify as a CAP officer under today's standards as he did not have a high school education either.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2015, 01:49:55 PM
Similarly, there is little doubt that many, many strong and capable American leaders have had little or no college education.  Telling Richard Branson, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates that they do not qualify to be a CAP officer would be an interesting conversation.  Ditto for Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln.

You disappoint me by not listing Justice Jackson who was a very well respected Supreme Court Justice (some claim that Roosevelt promised him the job of Chief Justice at one point), and prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals, despite never having graduated from law school.

:)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2015, 01:52:29 PM
The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets. Many people here can't wait to pound their chests and shout from the mountaintops about how important CAP is to the Air Force, but when a proposal to align its structure and promotion system to better mirror the organization who's uniform many people so enjoy wearing is made, nobody seems to want to loose their earned grade because "I'm a captain, and I don't need no fancy degree to make me that way."

So, precisely how would someone who has a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving make a superior officer to someone such as Sir Richard Branson?

It's not anti-college or anti-intellectualism.  It's elitism of the highest order to think that the only way to be intellectual is to go to college. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 14, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
The "minimum qualifications for various CAP officer grades" is, and should be, an ongoing discussion for us.


Bottom line: we have an existing system.  Folks who want to change the status quo bear the burden of convincing the leadership of the wisdom and advantage of their position.


Very true.  If we want to raise the bar to be an "Officer" in CAP, our leadership should be convinced there is true value added in the process.  " Aligning ourselves with the Air Force" is fine, however is there some pressure from them to do so? What would be the benefits to changing the present system (more funding, increased mission availability)?  If there is to be a two tiered "NCO" and "Officer" cast system in CAP, will there be a real benefit to the different training paths?

I'm sorry, I just don't see it.  I've only been a member for 38 years.  Maybe I need more experience with CAP before I get it... :o
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on April 14, 2015, 01:53:55 PM
The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets. Many people here can't wait to pound their chests and shout from the mountaintops about how important CAP is to the Air Force, but when a proposal to align its structure and promotion system to better mirror the organization who's uniform many people so enjoy wearing is made, nobody seems to want to loose their earned grade because "I'm a captain, and I don't need no fancy degree to make me that way."
The first thing that would need to be put forth is how that would improve CAP. That is still missing from the NCO program arguments. And the lack of how it would improve CAP is a major point of contention with a lot of the changes people bring forth that will affect the vast majority of the membership.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 14, 2015, 01:56:44 PM
Yes it would be interesting to tell Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln they could not be CAP officers.  Although, I am pretty sure, not having a pulse would be the first disqualifier in that conversation :)
Can you cite a regulation requiring a pulse to be a member?  ;)
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 14, 2015, 02:16:57 PM
The "minimum qualifications for various CAP officer grades" is, and should be, an ongoing discussion for us.

Any conversation about requiring an associate or higher degree for CAP officer status is always going to provoke sincere and strongly-held opinions.  Because, much like a typical CAP uniform discussion, it gets personal very quickly.

There are strong points to be made on each side.  Aligning ourselves more closely with our AF colleagues and raising our standards for officer status beyond a GED are certainly worthy arguments.

Similarly, there is little doubt that many, many strong and capable American leaders have had little or no college education.  Telling Richard Branson, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates that they do not qualify to be a CAP officer would be an interesting conversation.  Ditto for Harry Truman and Abe Lincoln.

Ultimately, -- just like with the h/w issues on AF-style uniforms --  I suspect folks will tend to line up on the issue based on their personal status.  Those with a degree with tend to agree that college should be required, and those without that particular piece of paper on the wall will tend to disagree.

And just like a uniform discussion, the responses will be heartfelt and passionate. 

(And just like the uniform discussion, no one will be able to convince anyone on the other side.)

Bottom line: we have an existing system.  Folks who want to change the status quo bear the burden of convincing the leadership of the wisdom and advantage of their position.

Well said. I agree 100%.

The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets.

That us unfortunately true. One thing is to argue against requiring a college degree to become a CAP officer and another is to discredit the college education system and degrees. Do we not want our cadets to attend college if they want to and are able?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 14, 2015, 02:34:44 PM
The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets. Many people here can't wait to pound their chests and shout from the mountaintops about how important CAP is to the Air Force, but when a proposal to align its structure and promotion system to better mirror the organization who's uniform many people so enjoy wearing is made, nobody seems to want to loose their earned grade because "I'm a captain, and I don't need no fancy degree to make me that way."
I was a captain..... And I don't need a fancy degree.  I do not push college nor does pushing college make you a roll model.  However I do have a lifetime of solid accomplishment and have made quite the career for myself  through vocational training.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NCRblues on April 14, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
I am sorry, but is anyone else confused as to why an "NCO committe" that was charged with retooling the "NCO corps" is talking about possibly changing "officer grade and requirements"??

Would that not be a job for a "officer and officer PD committe" made up of uh...Officers???
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 14, 2015, 02:37:45 PM

The anti-college and anti intellectualism attitudes I've seen expressed here by some "officers" is sickening. I hope you're all providing a better example and better role model to your cadets. Many people here can't wait to pound their chests and shout from the mountaintops about how important CAP is to the Air Force, but when a proposal to align its structure and promotion system to better mirror the organization who's uniform many people so enjoy wearing is made, nobody seems to want to loose their earned grade because "I'm a captain, and I don't need no fancy degree to make me that way."

So, precisely how would someone who has a BA in Underwater Basket Weaving make a superior officer to someone such as Sir Richard Branson?

It's not anti-college or anti-intellectualism.  It's elitism of the highest order to think that the only way to be intellectual is to go to college.

I wholeheartedly disagree. While I'm not a proponent of requiring a college degree to become a CAP officer, that is exactly what many are doing on this board; discrediting the need or benefit for a college education. While it's true that many successful individuals don't have college degrees, it's also true that many opportunities are not available to those who don't. I hope we're teaching that to our cadets so they can make informed decisions about their future when the time comes.

I know for a fact that my college education opened doors for me and I know first hand that it has for many others. I also know people who have been successful without a degree, but there's no denying that they didn't necessarily have the same opportunities available.

Whether education is required for CAP or not, many industries will continue to tighten their education requirements. It has nothing to do with "elitism", especially because almost everyone in this country has an opportunity to further their education in one way or another. I came from a poor family and can attest to that.

Education is a good thing. And while you can certainly learn on your own, there's no way to document that they way a degree can. A college education is meant to give you tools. It's not the end of all things, but it's certainly a good start for those who chose that path. There are certainly many opportunities available for those who do not wish to pursue a degree, but that doesn't diminish the value of having one either.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 14, 2015, 03:02:02 PM
The focus of the discussion should be related to why its important to have one to be a CAP officer.  Not life in general.  So far, being a positive roll model for the cadets is all Ive seen mentioned.   So, with that.   I guess  the non-degree having NCOs will be drawing with crayons as they attempt to motivate cadets.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 14, 2015, 04:35:50 PM
Not too many volunteers will be able to jump into CAP (COME and PAY) as we know it or run out and pick up a CFI with $100,000.00 of College to pay for.  Think about it, an Academy degree or an ROTC degree are fairly well financed by the military.  On the other hand you will have 45 year old 20 year E-6 NCO's and and 20 year old E-5 NCO's that don't have a clue what the other is doing..  Take a good program of 40 years making (I mean without that shameful lying about sinking subs) that seems to work well and flush it.  Our wing has 2,000 members.  Around 125 have level IV done (Lt.Col).  That is barely over 5%.  Are there to many gray haired Lt.Col.'s?  Yes at Conferences or large gatherings, because the lower 80% are not involved in politics or the upper level management of things and are out on the flight line doing orientation flights or training ES material.  The program is working.  As has been asked and so refusedly not answered, how is any of this going to help CAP.  Please share a picture of this enlightened CAP of the future so we can either jump on board or jump ship...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 14, 2015, 04:58:28 PM
I am sorry, but is anyone else confused as to why an "NCO committe" that was charged with retooling the "NCO corps" is talking about possibly changing "officer grade and requirements"??

Would that not be a job for a "officer and officer PD committe" made up of uh...Officers???
the NCO committee is not charged with making any changes to the officer corps.  But one of the points on the NCO program was to position CAP to be able to make changes to the officer corps if we (CAP) so chooses.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on April 14, 2015, 05:13:57 PM
Think about it, an Academy degree or an ROTC degree are fairly well financed by the military. 

One tiny correction to a thoughtful post.

Most military officers are commissioned via ROTC.  And the great majority of those officers did not receive significant financial assistance from the military toward their college expenses.  Yes, something like 10% of ROTC students are on a full military scholarship, but the rest of us received only a small monthly stipend that did not come close to covering tuition, books, or other expenses.

More like an honorarium, actually.  I received $100 a month for the academic year.  I understand they get more now, but the main point is that most military officers paid for the great majority of the their college expenses on their own.

It really does take a village . . .

Ned Lee
Former ROTC Cadet
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on April 14, 2015, 06:09:24 PM
So, on the topic of being CAP NCOs, how long has it usually taken for the update to one's grade to take effect?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 14, 2015, 06:14:42 PM
So, on the topic of being CAP NCOs, how long has it usually taken for the update to one's grade to take effect?
As soon as NHQ gets it.....within the week.
Where's your Form 2?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on April 14, 2015, 06:19:53 PM
Somehow I suspect the world was going to come to an end with CAP withering away to a footnote in the annuals of antiquity by disregarding decades of tradition by eliminating NCO's as a viable component of the force , the first time.

It is an organization that can make, break or waiver its own rules at its whim,  they can and most likely will create exceptions to any new rule that will overly restrict the ability to carry out its missions.

Not enough pilots joining because of their lack of degree- easy waiver,"... can not progress beyond captain without x,y,z requirement ..." the Air Force and the Army did it for years with nurses.

I see the same dynamic of NCO's in the military now, especially the reserves.  The newer younger junior NCO's are mentored by the old crust and seasoned ones.....they may have generational gap issues, but when it comes to getting the job done...whoa,  it does.  CAP will be no different

MK
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on April 14, 2015, 06:22:00 PM
It's been at NHQ. Scanned it in directly last Tuesday or so. Scanned in CAC, CAP ID, and state DL to verify identity when they asked for supporting documentation. Just curious. I don't want to be a bad example and wear the uniform of a SSgt when I'm still a 2Lt. Wondering how much longer I can't wear what I paid for is all.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 14, 2015, 06:53:29 PM
It's been at NHQ. Scanned it in directly last Tuesday or so. Scanned in CAC, CAP ID, and state DL to verify identity when they asked for supporting documentation. Just curious. I don't want to be a bad example and wear the uniform of a SSgt when I'm still a 2Lt. Wondering how much longer I can't wear what I paid for is all.
Sounds good I would not start pinging NHQ until the end of the week....but it should not take long.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 14, 2015, 07:49:40 PM
Ned, ROTC is paying full tuition, and books and giving something like $300.00 a month after summer encampment and beginning the third year.. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 14, 2015, 08:25:43 PM
Ned, ROTC is paying full tuition, and books and giving something like $300.00 a month after summer encampment and beginning the third year..

That's assuming you can get through the first two years. That same deal, with a smaller stipend, was available when I went to Rutgers in 1967. OTOH, full ride scholarships were much harder to get.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 14, 2015, 09:16:36 PM
The focus of the discussion should be related to why its important to have one to be a CAP officer.  Not life in general.  So far, being a positive roll model for the cadets is all Ive seen mentioned.   So, with that.   I guess  the non-degree having NCOs will be drawing with crayons as they attempt to motivate cadets.

Who said you needed a college degree to be "a positive roll role model for the cadets"? What I and others said is that bashing college degrees as unnecessary and unimportant is not providing a good example to our cadets, many who may choose to pursue a college education. Or do you really think that saying things like "I don't need a fancy degree" is providing a good example to our cadets?

And by the way, you should have a little more respect towards our NCOs. All Air Force NCOs go through several levels of technical training and professional military education and are some of the most educated and professional in the world. In fact, not only do many of our NCOs have associate's and bachelor's degrees, a large number of them have master's degrees or higher as well. That, of course, is not what makes them good NCOs. But it certainly adds to their professional development.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 14, 2015, 09:25:25 PM
And that gets us back to the point. 
Sure.  To do CAP no one needs a degree.  But by that same token to do CAP no one needs to be an officer or an NCO either.   

The idea of making CAP officers (and CAP NCOs) more like our USAF comrades will go a long way in improving our relationship with the USAF.

A fix all?   Hell no!  But IMHO it would make it better. 

YMMV
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 14, 2015, 09:26:46 PM
For those interested.  These numbers reflect the USAF only:

Quote
Officer Academic Education
61.8% of officers have advanced or professional degrees
49.6% have master's degrees
10.4% have professional degrees
1.8% have doctorate degrees

Company Grade Officers
37.3% of company grade officers have advanced degrees
29.2% have master's degrees
7.7% have professional degrees
0.4% have doctorate degrees

Field Grade Officers
94% of field grade officers have advanced degrees
77.3% have master's degrees
13.1% have professional degrees
3.5% have doctorate degrees

Enlisted Academic Education
61% completed some college
24.1% have associate's degrees
8.1% have bachelor's degrees
1.5% have master's degree
0.018% have professional degrees

Airmen Tier
80.67% have some college
4.971% have associate's degrees
3.117% have bachelor's degrees
0.103% have master's degree
0.002% have professional degrees

NCO Tier
53.70% some college
37.112% have associate's degrees
8.070% have bachelor's degrees
1.023% have master's degree
0.014% have professional degrees

Senior NCO Tier
11.59% some college
53.084% have associate's degrees
26.866% have bachelor's degrees
8.362% have master's degrees
0.093% have professional degrees

Quote
Source of commission
42.7% commissioned through Reserve Officer Training Corps
22.8% commissioned through the Air Force Academy
17.1% commissioned through Officer Training School
17.5% commissioned through other sources (direct appointment, etc.)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 14, 2015, 09:52:26 PM
Obviously we're shooting too low -- Masters should be the minimum level for
CAP officers and some college time is needed for NCOs.   >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 14, 2015, 10:35:04 PM
And that gets us back to the point. 
Sure.  To do CAP no one needs a degree.  But by that same token to do CAP no one needs to be an officer or an NCO either.   

The idea of making CAP officers (and CAP NCOs) more like our USAF comrades will go a long way in improving our relationship with the USAF.

A fix all?   Hell no!  But IMHO it would make it better. 

YMMV

I appreciate the comment, however I would love to understand how the USAF will feel better with CAP by "making CAP officers and NCO's more like our USAF comrades"?  I do understand the AF members of the BoG, and the USAF have bought into the plan. I just can't imagine how this change will effect our "relationship".   When it comes down to it, IMHO it's what we do that counts; not what we wear on our shoulders/sleeves.....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 14, 2015, 11:16:17 PM
The thing is that many AF officers (and NCOs) are getting degrees that probably have some general degree of relevance to their Air Force career.  Sure, some may have underwater basketweaving, but I'd bet that in general a higher percentage of AF officers have degrees with some amount of relevance to AF operations than CAP officers do. 

That being the case, it is easy to understand why degrees for AF officers probably actually help the AF work a little better.  I really don't see how that works out for CAP at all except for a few specialized situations.  For example, accountants that become finance officers, lawyers, doctors (acknowledging that their degrees are relevant to their CAP career but that they are generally prevented from using those skills in aid of CAP). 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 14, 2015, 11:53:06 PM
The thing is that many AF officers (and NCOs) are getting degrees that probably have some general degree of relevance to their Air Force career.  Sure, some may have underwater basketweaving, but I'd bet that in general a higher percentage of AF officers have degrees with some amount of relevance to AF operations than CAP officers do. 

You are mistaken kind sir.  The vast majority of NCO's that get a BS or BA get them in majors that don't relate to their current jobs.
Either because there is not a match for their current job or because they're prepping for retirement and get a degree that will help them there.
Now the Associates Degree they get from CCAF, that is directly related to their job.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 15, 2015, 01:02:40 AM
The thing is that many AF officers (and NCOs) are getting degrees that probably have some general degree of relevance to their Air Force career.  Sure, some may have underwater basketweaving, but I'd bet that in general a higher percentage of AF officers have degrees with some amount of relevance to AF operations than CAP officers do.
Nope....not even close.

Had a Lt Col Chief of Maintenance (comm) who had a BA in Marine Biology.  And while to be competitive ROTC cadets are usually in the hard sciences/Engineering.....many do switch majors after they are contract when their chosen degree turns out to be too hard.    Same story for OTS officers.   Just because you have a BS in Atomic Physics does not mean you are going to be assigned an to the Atomic Physics Department in the Air Force.

And the few degrees that would actually have some bearing on being a leader and manager.....are not considered very competitive for any the commissioning programs.

Bottom line....is that the Air Force has considered a BA/BS as simply the gate keeper for entry into the officer corps.    Some degrees have some bearing on whether a person gets a slot or not.....but it has almost zero bearing on their job (yes there are some exceptions...but those are not the norm in my experience).

That said.....how will making our officer and NCO corps match the USAF standard help CAP?    One example......generally speaking.....people with more education are simply better leaders.   I know this is not universally true....but generally speaking......it is.   Getting a higher education just makes you better then not getting one.

Second.....the perception of USAF personnel is that CAP officers are more or less posers.    A GED and six months and you are a 2d Lt...........the lowliest Airman will laugh in the face of any CAP 2d Lt he meets.   We are simply not real officers.

Third.....and let's all be honest here......if we want to make rank mean something, we need to make our people work for it.  Anything given away too freely is not respected by the recipient or by others.   And let's be honest....CAP more or less just gives rank away.   If we make it hard...and once others understand we had to work for it.....that in and of itself will help us earn respect.

Having said all that.....yep I understand that stealing the USAF model whole hog is simply not going to work CAP.   But.......that dose not mean we can't take some of the good parts and use them to advantage.

And.....on the other side.........if it is not worth the effort.....we can not do it.  We can keep (or return to) the status quo and CAP will still be here, CAP will still be doing the mission and we will just have another chapter in our history books of "we tried XYZ and it did not work".   The world ain't going to end because of CAP ranks.


Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 15, 2015, 02:29:42 AM
I've asked various officers in the military (all services) what they use(d) their degree(s) for in their military job(s).  The vast majority have said "not much". A frequent response is that their degree makes for a nice hobby, or possibly a second career, if they can stay somewhat current in the field.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Al Sayre on April 15, 2015, 07:38:21 AM
When I was on AD, most of our officers (pilots) did not have degrees in anything remotely related to their jobs.  Out of the 100 to 200 I worked with, I remember 3 or 4 that had music degrees, a bunch of history, political science, business and accounting majors, and a very few with various engineering degrees (mostly civil or mechanical).  I remember 1 pilot who had a degree in aeronautical engineering, and 1 who had a commercial aviation degree.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 15, 2015, 07:57:27 AM

Third.....and let's all be honest here......if we want to make rank mean something, we need to make our people work for it.  Anything given away too freely is not respected by the recipient or by others.   And let's be honest....CAP more or less just gives rank away.   If we make it hard...and once others understand we had to work for it.....that in and of itself will help us earn respect.

Having said all that.....yep I understand that stealing the USAF model whole hog is simply not going to work CAP.   But.......that dose not mean we can't take some of the good parts and use them to advantage.

And.....on the other side.........if it is not worth the effort.....we can not do it.  We can keep (or return to) the status quo and CAP will still be here, CAP will still be doing the mission and we will just have another chapter in our history books of "we tried XYZ and it did not work".   The world ain't going to end because of CAP ranks.

Now you have said something I can agree with.  There have been many great suggestions on improving our grade structure (rank is a seniority system).  Setting realistic and definite requirements for promotion is a great idea; something our friend Eclipse has recommended on numerous threads. CAP is known for dolling out grades like penny candy on occasion, and except for certain positions, I rather a member earn grade.  Value is placed on things earned; not given.  Setting the bar at a college degree is something different.  During my tenure as a leader in CAP, I never came across a USAF airman or officer who didn't "respect" me for my grade or position;  I always felt as a comrade
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 15, 2015, 09:13:11 AM
Is there any possibility that in this so called attempt to align with the Air Force that the Uniform standards will change to go along with the Air Force and there will no longer be Grays/whites?  Maybe we will all conform to Air Force weight and grooming standards or be released from duty??  When things are done in the shadows, paranoia abounds?  How could we possibly roll out the NCO program without some forethought and actual planning as to what the whole game is to be?  I think they know a lot more than they want to reveal.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 15, 2015, 09:27:19 AM
The thing is that many AF officers (and NCOs) are getting degrees that probably have some general degree of relevance to their Air Force career.  Sure, some may have underwater basketweaving, but I'd bet that in general a higher percentage of AF officers have degrees with some amount of relevance to AF operations than CAP officers do. 

You are mistaken kind sir.  The vast majority of NCO's that get a BS or BA get them in majors that don't relate to their current jobs.
Either because there is not a match for their current job or because they're prepping for retirement and get a degree that will help them there.
Now the Associates Degree they get from CCAF, that is directly related to their job.

Agreed. Even on the officer side, most officers do not have degrees that relate to their job. I have known infantry officers with degrees in biology. I have known an Engineer Officer that had a degree in biology. I have known transportation officers that have degrees in psychology.  I have known Quartermaster officers with degrees in history.  I have known a chemical officer that had a degree in communication and a signal corps officer with a degree in economics. 

Unfortunately, degrees that are somewhat relevant to the Army are seen as less competitive in the Accessions Process. That is a degree in healthcare management would be relevant to a medical service corps officer.  Degree in organizational leadership would be relevant to an infantry officer.

I had a BC that walked into the education office and asked what was the easiest and fastest major to get his master's degree.  He did not care what it was in.  He simply just need a master's degree so he could get picked up for LTC. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 15, 2015, 10:23:56 AM
The Air Force doesn't require college degrees for commissions and certain promotions because they're necessarily related to the service member's Air Force specialty, but because of the other benefits that come with a college education. For example, many college graduates tend to have better communications skills, both written and verbal. While not every college graduate may be good at this, and these skills can certainly be acquire outside of college, the amount of papers and presentations required by many universities and degree programs certainly prepare those who go through those programs better. The ability to do research and develop analytical skills is another benefit of working on a degree. It certainly requires commitment, discipline and time management to complete a degree. Other skills learned are note-taking, prioritizing, multi-tasking, working independently and with others, working under pressure, among others.

All these skills, of course, can be learned outside of college. But how long can it take to learn these on your own or through work experience? Most recent college graduates are around 22 years old. Without college, it would take these folks many more years to learn some of these skills that can be learned in college. In fact, I bet that most of the members here boasting about how successful they are without a college degree are not in their early to mid twenties, but much older. There's a reason for that.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 15, 2015, 10:46:11 AM
I am not apposed to College degrees.  I am apposed to them being the threshold to come on Board as an Officer.  1971 I was 31 years old.  I had attended 5-6 colleges and had about 60 credits, no degree.  I still have my Promotion picture from the St. Valentines dance we had in Florida.  It took six months and I had to shave off my mustache, no matter how in Reg it was.  I was wearing my Air Force Blues with my solo wings.  I was very proud as was my wife.  I became PAO for Group 5 in Florida.  34 years later, I am an old Lt.Col. that can no longer wear Air Force Blues.  I also have over 14 years of college with 4 degrees, three of which are advanced.  If I had to have a degree in 1971, I would not have joined CAP.  If I had a degree in 1971, I would have joined the Air Force.  I think I have done well with my private as well as my CAP career.  The need for boundries may not be a good thing..  On the one hand, CAP is pushing for more inclusion, like from the inner city group.  On the other hand they are talking about less inclusion by limitations.  Is it just me, or is there no longer any common sense anywhere??   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 15, 2015, 11:48:05 AM
And that gets us back to the point. 
Sure.  To do CAP no one needs a degree.  But by that same token to do CAP no one needs to be an officer or an NCO either.   

The idea of making CAP officers (and CAP NCOs) more like our USAF comrades will go a long way in improving our relationship with the USAF.

A fix all?   Hell no!  But IMHO it would make it better. 

YMMV

Let's examine this notion of making ourselves more like USAF.

CAP was founded on the premise that those who could not meet the standards of the regular military (Army Air Corps, before there even was a USAF!) still had a contribution to make to the service of the nation.

Perhaps teaching the officers and enlisted personnel a bit of history of their Auxiliary -- which pre-dates them-- would also help alleviate misunderstanding.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 15, 2015, 12:12:36 PM
And that gets us back to the point. 
Sure.  To do CAP no one needs a degree.  But by that same token to do CAP no one needs to be an officer or an NCO either.   

The idea of making CAP officers (and CAP NCOs) more like our USAF comrades will go a long way in improving our relationship with the USAF.

A fix all?   Hell no!  But IMHO it would make it better. 

YMMV

Let's examine this notion of making ourselves more like USAF.

CAP was founded on the premise that those who could not meet the standards of the regular military (Army Air Corps, before there even was a USAF!) still had a contribution to make to the service of the nation.

Perhaps teaching the officers and enlisted personnel a bit of history of their Auxiliary -- which pre-dates them-- would also help alleviate misunderstanding.

That is true. It's also true that CAP didn't fall initially under the Air Force (or Army Air Forces), but under the Office of Civilian Defense. Perhaps instead of trying to get closer to the Air Force (and wearing Air Force-style uniforms, insignias, grades and titles) we should realign our organization with another agency such as the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe we should be the FEMA Auxiliary instead. I'm fine either way. But I don't think we should follow the Air Force model for some things (those that make us look and feel good) and not for others (those that make us have to work a bit harder to earn those other things we like).

If we're going to continue being the Air Force Auxiliary, then aligning ourselves with our parent service (within reason, as we're not a Uniformed Service, but a civilian auxiliary) is not a bad thing. I don't really care if they require new officers to have a degree or not, but I do favor increased requirements for initial appointment to 2d Lt and subsequent promotions within the officer corps. Why? Because if being a Lt Col wearing silver oak leaves in an Air Force-style uniform doesn't mean what most people think being a Lt Col means, then why call it Lt Col and why use the same type of insignia?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 15, 2015, 01:00:44 PM
If I had to have a degree in 1971, I would not have joined CAP.  [snip]  On the one hand, CAP is pushing for more inclusion, like from the inner city group.  On the other hand they are talking about less inclusion by limitations.  Is it just me, or is there no longer any common sense anywhere??

So you would have only joined CAP if you could be an officer?  Am I understanding you correctly?  As the way I understand it, which this is still just rumor and I do not really believe it until I hear more concrete talk, is that if you have a degree you may pursue the officer route.  However, if you do not, you may only pursue the NCO route. 

If this actually pans out, having a degree is not necessarily being less inclusive.  Rather, it is just a method to decide which route is pursued after joining CAP.  No one, from the rumors, is saying that if you do not have a degree, then you cannot join CAP.  I guess it is only less inclusive if you do not want to be an NCO. 

Heck, I could not care less if CAP made every one NCOs except commanders and specific wing and above staff.  I will keep driving on with my historian reports even as a SNCO.  I guess that would save my arm from having to salute to all the bloody time.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 15, 2015, 01:20:03 PM
That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions. 

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 15, 2015, 01:31:02 PM
I don't think that's an unreasonable goal, although it would take many years (decades?) to accomplish, as long-time CAP members usually stick around for many years.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 15, 2015, 01:33:39 PM
That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions.

Which to me just makes sense.  You top out as a CMSgt instead of a Lt Col (generally speaking) as you should be a technical expert in your field for CAP.  But I guess everyone's position will be different.

I don't think that's an unreasonable goal, although it would take many years (decades?) to accomplish, as long-time CAP members usually stick around for many years.

True, unless you do a mass "demotion" and state that all Lt Cols except XYZ in XYZ staff positions are CMSgt (or whatever rank) and must switch rank by 01 Jan 2020.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 15, 2015, 03:11:35 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 15, 2015, 10:42:39 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 15, 2015, 11:19:21 PM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."

Or even flight officers, which would be even more distinctive. I know warrant/flight officer grades have been discussed before, but it's not a bad idea. It would certainly address a lot of the concerns discussed on this board. We could either eliminate officer grades completely or make them temporary and only while holding certain command or staff positions.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on April 16, 2015, 06:06:47 AM
Then, why don't we just assign grade to a certain position? The permutations are endless....... 
All I would like to see is change which will improve our organization.  I'm not interested in rearranging deck chairs.....

Or...

Make everybody a warrant officer. Five grades gives plenty of room to show hierarchy. USAF can say "we don't have warrant officers. Except in our auxiliary. They're all warrant officers."

Or even flight officers, which would be even more distinctive. I know warrant/flight officer grades have been discussed before, but it's not a bad idea. It would certainly address a lot of the concerns discussed on this board. We could either eliminate officer grades completely or make them temporary and only while holding certain command or staff positions.

Well, that would make sense.  Five warrant / flight officer grades and five levels of professional development.  You gain a flight officer grade for each level of professional development.  For example, Level I = Flight Officer.  Level II = Technical Flight Officer.  Level III = Senior Flight Officer.  Level IV = Master Flight Officer.  Level V = Chief Flight Officer.

For what it's worth, if word from NHQ came down to me saying "Hey, Captain, we know you've been doing several different jobs in both your Squadron and Group, but since you don't have a college degree, you're being demoted to NCO status / can not progress in the officer PD program anymore", that'll be the day I turn in my CAPID and move on.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 16, 2015, 08:26:50 AM
I doubt CAP would ever demote some of our members for missing a new requirement.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ProdigalJim on April 16, 2015, 08:53:04 AM
I wrote something like this back in 2012 when we were arguing about our CAP/CC not having a degree, and I still feel this way. Apart from Ned's excellent analysis earlier in the thread, I really believe that part of the "debate" goes back to your own philosophy on what a college education is FOR. Is it to train for a trade or profession, or is it to improve your depth of knowledge, broaden your perspective and sharpen your reasoning skills? Neither view is BETTER and both views have merit, but they clearly begin in a different place and lead to vastly different conclusions about the utility and relevance of a degree to CAP.

Even so, regardless of where you stand on the "what's it for" question, I'm genuinely mystified by the outright blanket derision some people here seem to have for degrees and, by extension, for those who hold them.

It truly boils down to whether you consider a degree just another vocational/trade qualification, like a Commercial Driver's License, a Barber's License, an RN, an NREMT-P, etc., or  instead consider it as something more.

I happen to believe in the idea of education as a means of improving your ability to think, to reason, to understand, to challenge and to grow. Really. And I think culturally and practically the USAF wants officers leaders who can think, reason, understand, challenge and grow, and who can encourage those things in those whom they lead.

As much as many of us don't want to believe it, I think the unspoken but real conflict the AF has with us as "officers" is that often we don't share the same cultural underpinning. Look at LSTHiker's post with the degree stats: the fewer experiences we have in common with AF officers, the less likely we are to be accepted as peers...and when we wear blues with officer grade on them, we are outwardly claiming, at some level, that we're "peers."

I didn't take "Underwater Basket Weaving." But here are some of the "useless" courses I took: European History, Medieval History, American History, Military History, Money and Banking, Economics 1, Economics 2, the History of Political Thought, Statistics 1, English Composition , Advanced English Composition, Principles of International Trade, Monetary Systems, Revolutions and Reform, Comparative Religion.

Because I took those things, I am aware of how political movements have formed and fared over the years...I know how Europe has been shaped by dynasty and the clash of nobility over centuries...I'm familiar with the conflicting ideas and threads that kicked off the Protestant reformation and how those conflicts and ideas remain unresolved today...I'm not mystified by how banking works...or how economic policy is made, managed and mismanaged and how politicians who want my vote handle those questions. I can balance a checkbook...build a spreadsheet to analyze the pros and cons of a business plan...interpret budget documents...read complex reports enough to formulate questions about them, so I can learn more.

I have a lens with which to view the world around me. There are many things I don't know, but the world around me doesn't baffle me the way it otherwise would. I can write a coherent sentence, organize my thoughts and make myself understood.

None of the above are "useless" skills. All of the above can be acquired in different ways. College is just one of those ways, and it happens to be a pretty efficient and streamlined way to do it. Many of these skills I have since honed dramatically in 30 years of professional life. But the fact that I built the foundation for knowing these things in a collegiate setting doesn't NEGATE the value of knowing those things or of learning the skills needed to enable me to learn more.

And just to add the final irony...I learned all of those things in my CORE classes, that everyone who wants to graduate had to take. NOT in my major, which was...wait for it...Art History. Really. And I've been gainfully employed every day of my life since I was 16 and never lived in my Mom's basement and never worked at McDonald's, even though I was raised by a single mother on a military disability pension.

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 16, 2015, 09:30:40 AM
Even so, regardless of where you stand on the "what's it for" question, I'm genuinely mystified by the outright blanket derision some people here seem to have for degrees and, by extension, for those who hold them.

OK, so I have a degree...but I've not seen anyone show "outright blanket derision" of people with degrees.

What I object to, in the strongest possible terms, is the sense of elitism that some people attach to degrees.  That a university degree is the only way to have a broad intellectual experience.  That's demonstrably false.  It is one path to education, but far, far from the only one.

The "derision" seems to go the opposite way from what you seem to think.  And for someone who claims that their education has given them critical thinking skills, your comment quoted above challenges that claim quite effectively.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 16, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
With my several degrees, I have found one thing common in all.  I was excited to begin, I knew what the end was and I worked hard and enjoyed it all.  BUT, it was truly anti-climatic walking across that stage and receiving the degrees.  It was about the friendships and learning of the subject matter, at least enough to ace the tests.  I find I am still a very common man, with very little if any ego.  I do feel I am fairly intelligent, but I always did, even before school.  I still put my pants on one leg at a time with a little help sometimes.  Once, I did put both legs on at the same time just to do it, but that was a long time ago in a place far, far away.  I have usually found that teh ones that make a big thing out of their degrees are usually not worth the time or effort.  I value a person for integrity.  I value a person for honesty.  I value a person for their decency.  I value a person for their common sense, which unfortunately they don't teach.  A degree is nothing more than a tool and a [darn] poor one in the hands of an idiot.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on April 16, 2015, 10:43:19 AM
The point of the degree requirement (regardless of where you are) is that it is, like mentioned, a one stop shop and for the organization requiring it and a one stop "check box" for the experiences/knowledge they are looking to "ensure" the individual has. (it isnt a guarantee, but at least a higher than likely possibility)

The issue I take with some of the posts (and this is one I see both militarily and in the civilian job) the leadership=management confusion.  They are not the same thing.  In my experience, a college degree prepares you for management, very few (at least in the degree department) make you or even prepare you to be a good leader. 

It has been my long standing opinion, that in most cases this is the difference between NCO's and officers.  Most NCO's are leadership specialists; officers are more managing experts.  (there are exceptions, extremes to either end mind you, obviously a commanding officer has to have a certain amount of leadership ability or should at least and a senior NCO will have more of a managerial side to him) 
More $10 word'ish Officers are/think strategic, NCO's are/think tactical. (again with some, often "air forcey" exceptions, ie rank and file pilots/navs etc)

Other than being undermanned and the having to hold multiple jobs, the average CAP person is a tactical person.  They worry usually just about their piece of the pie, or leading a small group in their small part of the pie.   Regardless of education, this is typically NCO level work.  Changing the rank structure or its requirements will likely not impact very much on how the average CAP person does their job or what job they do.

MK

 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 16, 2015, 10:54:31 AM

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.

Good bottom line, however with my experience with the Air Force, I have yet to see any problems with interactions based on my formal education.  I have also not had a problem with CAP officers because of educational background.  IMHO, it is CAP's responsibility to see our "officers" are trained according to an acceptable standard before placing them in a position of responsibility.  I'd rather see our courses and schools improved, if necessary, to accommodate this.  If we wish to look to the Air Force for such a standard, let the Air Force guide us in obtaining it.  We need to be firmly on the same page with this.  It is not amusing  to many members to hear "we're not getting the respect we want because", when there is absolutely no evidence from big blue to support it.
Just my $.02
 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Tim Day on April 16, 2015, 11:26:12 AM

So bottom line: 1) there are reasonable arguments on both sides about the relevance of a degree to being a CAP officer and interacting with our AF parent and; 2) the presence of a degree should not diminish the holder's practical accomplishments, and nor should its absence.

Good bottom line, however with my experience with the Air Force, I have yet to see any problems with interactions based on my formal education.  I have also not had a problem with CAP officers because of educational background.  IMHO, it is CAP's responsibility to see our "officers" are trained according to an acceptable standard before placing them in a position of responsibility.  I'd rather see our courses and schools improved, if necessary, to accommodate this.  If we wish to look to the Air Force for such a standard, let the Air Force guide us in obtaining it.  We need to be firmly on the same page with this.  It is not amusing  to many members to hear "we're not getting the respect we want because", when there is absolutely no evidence from big blue to support it.
Just my $.02
Concur - and to add, it's our responsibility as an organization to set a culture where the norm is that a Lt Col demonstrates the level of commitment to the organization and accountability that would be expected of an Air Force Lt Col, within the limits of our volunteer status and needs to earn a living, of course.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 16, 2015, 11:26:50 AM
That is more or less how I envisions things working.  The vast majority of CAP would be enlisted with a few officers in the command and high staff positions.

Just to keep the historical aspect of matters under discussion, please recall that CAP lost NCOs in the late 70s or early 80s because the USAF Senior NCO corps did not want our members wearing stripes!

I have no problem with re-establishing NCOs in CAP, including offering the option to non-prior military members...but perhaps it ought to be more related to the member's level of involvement than civilian education.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 16, 2015, 12:07:50 PM
I would like to see "the mubers" on the number of NCO's we lost in the late 70's or early 80's.  I don't think there are any numbers.   Probably a rumor, much like the sunken submarines in WWII.  If soneome refused to be in CAP because they had to be an "officer", they had too many other problems to be any good to our organization and would have been wasted effort...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 16, 2015, 01:58:35 PM
We "lost" NCOs back then because they were phased out. There were no new NCOs after 1 July 1972, and those folks who were already NCOs at that time could continue to wear their stripes until they were no longer members. NCO promotions were discontinued.

In 1984,they started allowing former military NCOs to wear their rank, but there were still no promotions.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 16, 2015, 02:09:09 PM
Can we confirm why we in fact decided to phase out the NCOs?

Like many things "they wanted us to" is often more rumor with a gain of truth....then the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 16, 2015, 11:32:09 PM
Can we confirm why we in fact decided to phase out the NCOs?

Like many things "they wanted us to" is often more rumor with a gain of truth....then the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I was around when it happened, assigned to CA Wing HQ. I knew several people who were impacted by it and it was widely discussed.

I have no recollection of it being USAF driven at all, let alone driven by USAF Senior NCOs, as mentioned in another post. Rather, it was largely driven by CAP members.

Some of the reasons: 1) Confusion ensued whenever CAP people visited clubs on military bases. CAP members Bill, Bob, Mary and Jane wanted to stop by for lunch or get a drink - except that Mary was a TSgt. Now what? While the unpaid volunteers saw no problem, military folks might. Then, when they departed, they left military people behind saying "Don't they know how it works?" or "Don't they respect our customs and traditions?" 2) Serious age differences. CAP NCOs came in two flavors: former military or off the street. We also had warrant officers then. Former cadets under 21 with Mitchell or Earhart could start as WO. Former cadets or off the street could go company grade officer or warrant officer or NCO. But - those joining off the street between 18-21 got stripes with very short TIG requirements, which meant we could have 20 year old MSgts, which did look quite odd in the Vietnam era. 3) I'm almost positive that I recall discussion of a study that was done prior to implementation, which was to determine if there was any real difference between what CAP NCOs did and what officers did. Nobody could identify anything in CAP where anyone needed to be one instead of the other.

So, off came the chevrons. I only recall one person who quit over it, but he had just started a business and was looking to phase out of CAP anyway. He didn't leave because he could no longer be an NCO - he left because he was a MSgt, thus having huge fade marks on uniform sleeves and he didn't want to invest in new uniforms for the few months left in his membership year.

Anyway, that's what I remember. I'd be curious to see if the historians have any reports or discussion records on this.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 17, 2015, 01:05:17 AM
People who earned chevrons were not required to remove them. That insignia was permitted for wear until they, for whatever reason, left CAP. There were just no more promotions available.

I looked through all but one of the uni regs from 1972 on, and it doesn't look like they were every totally removed from use. The one I'm missing is after NCOs were reinstated.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on April 17, 2015, 03:38:33 AM
As much as many of us don't want to believe it, I think the unspoken but real conflict the AF has with us as "officers" is that often we don't share the same cultural underpinning. Look at LSTHiker's post with the degree stats: the fewer experiences we have in common with AF officers, the less likely we are to be accepted as peers...and when we wear blues with officer grade on them, we are outwardly claiming, at some level, that we're "peers."

Until that point when they start paying CAP officers and give them authority and responsibilities under UCMJ, CAP officers won't be close to being peers with AF officers, no matter how many degrees CAP officers have.

So, basically, never.
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 17, 2015, 07:37:33 AM
That's true, which begs the question, why do we wear Air Force-style uniforms, grades and insignias and use titles and organizational structures similar to those in the Air Force?

If a Lt Col in CAP looks like a Lt Col in the Air Force and other services, but doesn't mean close to the same thing, then why call Lt Col? Why use the same or similar grade insignia? The same goes for other grades.

A candidate to 2d Lt in the Air Force must pass an entry exam, must go through a competitive selection process, must have a bachelor's degree and must go through 12 weeks to 4 years of training (depending on commissioning source) before getting a commission. In comparison, we practically hand 2d Lt bars to new members after 6 months and Level 1. Why does every member in CAP has to be an officer regardless of background, experience, training, education or duty assignment?

In most organizations, officers are those holding positions of trust, authority and responsibility. In CAP, practically every member is an officer regardless of what they do.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Av8tion on April 17, 2015, 08:51:49 AM
While we have this (at times) heated debate about the future of CAP officership and NCO progression, let me reassure those members without college degrees that CAP will NEVER implement a policy that wholesale demotes CAP officers to NCO status or removes their bars/leaves/etc. That simply won't happen. Current members will be grandfathered into the old system. There are several precedents for this:

1) When Lt Col was made a probationary grade for 1 year not too long ago, those who already earned the grade weren't subject to demotion due to inactivity.
2) When the new duty performance promotion criteria was released last year it provided a period for officers to remain in the current system for one promotion before being subject to the new requirements.

If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.

In my opinion, the difference between officers and enlisted in CAP should be technical specialists / "niche members" for the enlisted grades and those interested in a big-picture management/command role to pursue the officer grades. Training and progression would be different based on the path you choose (key word being choose... all members should have the opportunity to become an officer or enlisted). NCOs would have training and performance requirements tailored to their specialty tracks and specialty courses like AEPSM (Yeager award), TLC, ICUT, etc. Officers would all have the same universal requirements spanning all three of CAP's primary missions as well as leadership training courses like SLS, CLC, UCC, etc.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 17, 2015, 11:43:09 AM


If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.


That would make for an outstanding atmosphere.  Us vs Them.  Those of us who had to have degrees and then theres you dummies over there who were grandfathered in.  Don't think there wont be a way for the "new breed" to set themselves apart from the old timers.  its just how it works.  You cant have two sets of criteria for officer-ship.  Those who were required to have the higher standard WILL separate themselves. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 17, 2015, 12:20:49 PM
As opposed to creating an entirely new class of members that will still basically be doing the exact same work as the officers?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NC Hokie on April 17, 2015, 01:01:36 PM
If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.

I think the more likely option is that officers will get to keep their existing grade but will have to meet ALL requirements to promote to the next officer grade.  "Sorry Captain Bagodonuts, but you need a four year degree to make Major now.  We *are* running a special on CAP SMSgt chevrons if you'd like to transition to the NCO corps."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 17, 2015, 02:12:10 PM
If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.

I think the more likely option is that officers will get to keep their existing grade but will have to meet ALL requirements to promote to the next officer grade.  "Sorry Captain Bagodonuts, but you need a four year degree to make Major now.  We *are* running a special on CAP SMSgt chevrons if you'd like to transition to the NCO corps."
Just for the sake of conversation......it would probably me much like the last change to the officer promotion.   You are grandfathered to the next rank, (and or 2/3 years which ever comes first) and then you have to follow the new regs.

And yes.....by then the NCO path would be open to all.  It may be too late at that point to make the switch (as the switch matrix we discussed was discussed as a limited time offer sort of deal).
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: sarmed1 on April 17, 2015, 02:20:37 PM
...
Until that point when they start paying CAP officers and give them authority and responsibilities under UCMJ, CAP officers won't be close to being peers with AF officers, no matter how many degrees CAP officers have.

So, basically, never.

I have been in involved in a few organiztions where there are volunteer and paid staff doing similar if not the same jobs.  The volunteers are often given a bit more slack, but many of the proffesional expectations and the bulk of the training and learning are close to if not the same.  When doing the job, the only way you know the difference is if they tell you so.  "Peer" relationship between military and volunteer is not that unrealisitic.
UCMJ only applies to military personnel, the USAF as well as the rest of the DoD utilize both civilian employees and contractors that are held to equivilent expectations and ramifications as UCMJ.  Applying that to "auxillary" members is not that complicated.  AD/Res vs civilian employee is also not that differnt, if your work place supervisor is a civilian you as a military member are expected to follow their directions, policies etc etc just as if they are the equivilent military member. (sans saluting)

MK
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 17, 2015, 03:29:11 PM
"Volunteer and paid staff doing similar if not same jobs"?  That is an interesting statement, however it doesn't relate to grade distinction in a totally volunteer organization.  CAP is, and will always be, a totally volunteer organization; manned by civilian volunteers who are trained with the help of a combination of funds from different sources.

The simple fact; we are trained to a certain standard, and that standard does not require advanced degrees of any kind will not change.  That said, it is up to our Leadership if we need to have our senior members divided by a military style caste system.  If we chose this path, I can pretty much guarantee a seismic shift in the way business will be conducted.  We are the CIVIL Air Patrol; not some military arm of the Air Force.  IMHO,  Our auxiliary status is not dependent on such distinctions.  Our missions are not either. 

How CAP finally decides to implement the NCO track still remains to be seen.  I can only speak from experience, and that experience takes me back to when CAP removed the NCO program in the late 70s'.   The caste system will not work today.   There are no safeguards that can be implemented to "prevent crossing the line", and we no longer are willing to just "take it" when someone says "you can't do that", because of formal education having nothing to do with the job at hand.  Just ask the Volunteer Fire Chief after 40 years of service if he is "qualified".

My opinion is; we will never make CAP "more like the Air Force".  If that is the goal; we will fail.  The previous 250 or so thoughts on this thread make things pretty clear to me. This is going to be a very tough nut to sell.


 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 17, 2015, 03:38:37 PM
I have been in involved in a few organiztions where there are volunteer and paid staff doing similar if not the same jobs. 

In this case we are not in the same organization and are not doing similar if not the same jobs.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 17, 2015, 03:45:53 PM
It can't be done....so let's not even try....because.....reasons.

Okay....got it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on April 17, 2015, 03:47:07 PM
Back to the subject of NCO appointments, then back to discussing the need. Email from NHQ.

"I have sent this up to my supervisor as required at this time for all NCO appointments.  This is being reviewed.  As soon as the National Chief Master Sergeant gets back to them on his review of the promotions that have been forwarded for his approval. This may take some time sorry this is a learning curve for us since this is a new program."

So, it'll take a bit longer than in the past. Wonder why Nat'l CMSgt is on it?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on April 17, 2015, 04:06:45 PM
Quote
From SARMED

AD/Res vs civilian employee is also not that differnt, if your work place supervisor is a civilian you as a military member are expected to follow their directions...


The difference is that a military under a civilian both would be working under the DOD bigger umbrella. CAP would not be working in that relationship. If anything CAP would be working always under Air Force.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 17, 2015, 04:09:13 PM
Back to the subject of NCO appointments, then back to discussing the need. Email from NHQ.

"I have sent this up to my supervisor as required at this time for all NCO appointments.  This is being reviewed.  As soon as the National Chief Master Sergeant gets back to them on his review of the promotions that have been forwarded for his approval. This may take some time sorry this is a learning curve for us since this is a new program."

So, in order to better imitate the military we're allowing an NCO to make the final call on whether or not a promotion approved by an officer goes through?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: TheTravelingAirman on April 17, 2015, 04:12:45 PM
RiverAux,
Certainly not my point, but a good question nonetheless.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 17, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
It can't be done....so let's not even try....because.....reasons.

Okay....got it.
It's not even that.  It's that its not even needed.  Nobody involved in the transition can even articulate why it's needed.
Again..... The job will fall to who is interested, who has the ability and who has the time. Not "who" based on the symbol they choose to wear.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 17, 2015, 07:36:11 PM

We are the CIVIL Air Patrol; not some military arm of the Air Force.  IMHO,  Our auxiliary status is not dependent on such distinctions.  Our missions are not either. 

And neither do we need to wear Air Force-style uniforms or hold Air Force-style grades or use Air Force-style titles or earn Air Force-style decorations. You get the point.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 17, 2015, 07:52:52 PM
People who earned chevrons were not required to remove them. That insignia was permitted for wear until they, for whatever reason, left CAP. There were just no more promotions available.

I looked through all but one of the uni regs from 1972 on, and it doesn't look like they were every totally removed from use. The one I'm missing is after NCOs were reinstated.

When you say they didn't have to remove the chevrons, are you basing that on the uniform manual or the appointment regulation? I can easily picture the uniform manual retaining the illustrations and instructions for wearing them, due to sync differences.

I really don't recall seeing ANY NCOs from 1972 until they were brought back, but I do remember seeing former NCOs.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 17, 2015, 07:56:47 PM


If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.


That would make for an outstanding atmosphere.  Us vs Them.  Those of us who had to have degrees and then theres you dummies over there who were grandfathered in.  Don't think there wont be a way for the "new breed" to set themselves apart from the old timers.  its just how it works.  You cant have two sets of criteria for officer-ship.  Those who were required to have the higher standard WILL separate themselves.

Don't we have that already, sorting people by trouser color?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 17, 2015, 08:13:30 PM
It can't be done....so let's not even try....because.....reasons.

Okay....got it.
It's not even that.  It's that its not even needed.  Nobody involved in the transition can even articulate why it's needed.
Again..... The job will fall to who is interested, who has the ability and who has the time. Not "who" based on the symbol they choose to wear.
I am part of the process and I have on several occasions articulated the problem.  That you don't see it....well I just say we may not agree but we the problem has been articulated.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 17, 2015, 09:57:53 PM
People who earned chevrons were not required to remove them. That insignia was permitted for wear until they, for whatever reason, left CAP. There were just no more promotions available.

I looked through all but one of the uni regs from 1972 on, and it doesn't look like they were every totally removed from use. The one I'm missing is after NCOs were reinstated.

When you say they didn't have to remove the chevrons, are you basing that on the uniform manual or the appointment regulation? I can easily picture the uniform manual retaining the illustrations and instructions for wearing them, due to sync differences.

I really don't recall seeing ANY NCOs from 1972 until they were brought back, but I do remember seeing former NCOs.
Various versions of the 39-1, below, state that NCO chevrons may be worn, if earned prior to July 1972, both in the text and the illustrations.
 
1 June 1987
1 June 1985
1 January 1983
1 April 1980
1 January 1977
18 February 1970
What is your distinction between NCOs and former NCOs?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 18, 2015, 12:09:10 AM
People who earned chevrons were not required to remove them. That insignia was permitted for wear until they, for whatever reason, left CAP. There were just no more promotions available.

I looked through all but one of the uni regs from 1972 on, and it doesn't look like they were every totally removed from use. The one I'm missing is after NCOs were reinstated.

When you say they didn't have to remove the chevrons, are you basing that on the uniform manual or the appointment regulation? I can easily picture the uniform manual retaining the illustrations and instructions for wearing them, due to sync differences.

I really don't recall seeing ANY NCOs from 1972 until they were brought back, but I do remember seeing former NCOs.
Various versions of the 39-1, below, state that NCO chevrons may be worn, if earned prior to July 1972, both in the text and the illustrations.
 
1 June 1987
1 June 1985
1 January 1983
1 April 1980
1 January 1977
18 February 1970
What is your distinction between NCOs and former NCOs?

Interesting. The "prior to 1972" NCOs I knew either quit or became officers. I absolutely don't remember any that kept stripes.

By NCOs distinguished from former NCOs, I was referring to officers who stared as NCOs.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 18, 2015, 03:28:56 AM
Interesting. The "prior to 1972" NCOs I knew either quit or became officers. I absolutely don't remember any that kept stripes.

I'm sure that was the case for most of that group of NCOs. I only knew a couple WIWAC. The units I was in when I first became a SM didn't have any NCOs.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 18, 2015, 02:36:45 PM
WIWAC (1970-1973) the only NCOs I ever saw were under-21 years old seniors who joined too late to be cadets generally wearing a ridiculous number of stripes for their age (don't recall seeing anyone lower than MSgt!), patiently waiting to get TIG for Warrant Officer or turn 21 and become a 2 Lt.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on April 20, 2015, 08:11:33 AM
As much as many of us don't want to believe it, I think the unspoken but real conflict the AF has with us as "officers" is that often we don't share the same cultural underpinning. Look at LSTHiker's post with the degree stats: the fewer experiences we have in common with AF officers, the less likely we are to be accepted as peers...and when we wear blues with officer grade on them, we are outwardly claiming, at some level, that we're "peers."

Until that point when they start paying CAP officers and give them authority and responsibilities under UCMJ, CAP officers won't be close to being peers with AF officers, no matter how many degrees CAP officers have.

So, basically, never.

Sad that you have such a low opinion of yourself and CAP.  :-\
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on April 20, 2015, 08:16:48 AM


If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.


That would make for an outstanding atmosphere.  Us vs Them.  Those of us who had to have degrees and then theres you dummies over there who were grandfathered in.  Don't think there wont be a way for the "new breed" to set themselves apart from the old timers.  its just how it works.  You cant have two sets of criteria for officer-ship.  Those who were required to have the higher standard WILL separate themselves.

Don't we have that already, sorting people by trouser color?

 ;D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 20, 2015, 08:56:56 AM


If college degrees ever become a requirement for CAP officership (which isn't very likely) current CAP officers will be exempt and will continue through their career path as an officer.


That would make for an outstanding atmosphere.  Us vs Them.  Those of us who had to have degrees and then theres you dummies over there who were grandfathered in.  Don't think there wont be a way for the "new breed" to set themselves apart from the old timers.  its just how it works.  You cant have two sets of criteria for officer-ship.  Those who were required to have the higher standard WILL separate themselves.

Don't we have that already, sorting people by trouser color?

 ;D

And by status, active vs. patron.  >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on April 20, 2015, 10:43:34 AM
Touché.  ;)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 20, 2015, 10:54:41 AM
Just wear Airline style epaulets.  1-4 stripes for PD levels.  Group staff, Wing Staff and National Staff get ranks corresponding with positions.   Done. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: vorteks on April 20, 2015, 11:17:03 AM
Just wear Airline style epaulets.  1-4 stripes for PD levels.  Group staff, Wing Staff and National Staff get ranks corresponding with positions.   Done.

And you could address them as "SMWGI, SMWGII, SMWGIII, SMWGIIII...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: jeders on April 20, 2015, 11:39:52 AM
Some interesting notes from the CAP Command Chief who did a presentation at the TXWG conference this past weekend. Just thought I'd throw these out there for the wolves.

Apparently General Vazquez isn't as big of a fan of this new program as his predecessor was. According to Col Chief, there will not be any non-prior service NCOs nor will there be ANY degree requirements for officers so long as Gen Vazquez is in charge. On the one point, CAP simply doesn't have the resources to train up NCOs who haven't been NCOs any the military. On the other point, we are all volunteers, and that's what really matters.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: AirAux on April 20, 2015, 11:53:56 AM
There you have it, right out of the horses mouth, at least for what, 2 more years???  Do you all remember when we had the Iowa plan?  Where we were going to staart sending new members for six months of OCS?  Weekends and stuff?  That was quite a scare for a while... 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on April 20, 2015, 12:21:15 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 20, 2015, 12:51:18 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P

You could at least attribute this to Mr Orwell... ::)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on April 20, 2015, 01:30:36 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P

You could at least attribute this to Mr Orwell... ::)

The CAP members in Blue pants are more equal than others.  ;)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 20, 2015, 01:52:06 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P

You could at least attribute this to Mr Orwell... ::)

The CAP members in Blue pants are more equal than others.  ;)

So sayeth the Patron member who doesn't wear any pants!   >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 20, 2015, 02:20:21 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P

You could at least attribute this to Mr Orwell... ::)

The CAP members in Blue pants are more equal than others.  ;)

So sayeth the Patron member who doesn't wear any pants!   >:D

TOO MUCH INFORMATION
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 20, 2015, 02:23:40 PM
Apparently General Vazquez isn't as big of a fan of this new program as his predecessor was.

Which confirms the suspicion that arose from the fact that the update to the regs with respect to NCOs was clearly half-done when it was released mere days before the change of command.  As an example of the "half-done" was the fact that to be promoted to senior NCO roles, you need to hold jobs which are in no way defined as to their duties, responsibilities, etc.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 20, 2015, 03:07:36 PM
Sounds like things are getting back to "normalcy" down at Maxwell... A somewhat quiet death to this program would seem to be in order, considering the Commander's view on the subject.  Of course, things will probably change in another 2 1/2 years. ;)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 20, 2015, 06:46:09 PM
I'm still holding to 2 years for this program to die.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 20, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
Some interesting notes from the CAP Command Chief who did a presentation at the TXWG conference this past weekend. Just thought I'd throw these out there for the wolves.

Apparently General Vazquez isn't as big of a fan of this new program as his predecessor was. According to Col Chief, there will not be any non-prior service NCOs nor will there be ANY degree requirements for officers so long as Gen Vazquez is in charge. On the one point, CAP simply doesn't have the resources to train up NCOs who haven't been NCOs any the military. On the other point, we are all volunteers, and that's what really matters.
Wasn't going to be any anyways.....we are a long way before we open up the NCO Corps to non-prior services....and that has to happen before we make becoming an officer harder.

So...kind of a non-issue.

So....we will see what we will see.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NCRblues on April 20, 2015, 08:04:15 PM
Some interesting notes from the CAP Command Chief who did a presentation at the TXWG conference this past weekend. Just thought I'd throw these out there for the wolves.

Apparently General Vazquez isn't as big of a fan of this new program as his predecessor was. According to Col Chief, there will not be any non-prior service NCOs nor will there be ANY degree requirements for officers so long as Gen Vazquez is in charge. On the one point, CAP simply doesn't have the resources to train up NCOs who haven't been NCOs any the military. On the other point, we are all volunteers, and that's what really matters.
Wasn't going to be any anyways.....we are a long way before we open up the NCO Corps to non-prior services....and that has to happen before we make becoming an officer harder.

So...kind of a non-issue.

So....we will see what we will see.

Help me out a little, as I am unsure of what you are trying to get across with this response.

So, the command chief of CAP (whom I presume is on your NCO committee) informs a rather large Wing that this idea is more or less D.O.A. and confirmed all the rumors (basically) that this project was a pet of the last CC.

Your response to this is we will see what we will see?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 20, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
No.....he said the national cc will not endorse phase 3 on his watch.   His watch us over in 2 years phase three was at least that far away.  We may not be DOA yet. 

I'm traveling right now and have not yet communicated with the command chief.  When I do I will have a better understanding of the patient's condition.   We've had to wait out national commanders before. This is nothing new.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 20, 2015, 10:13:33 PM
No.....he said the national cc will not endorse phase 3 on his watch.   His watch us over in 2 years phase three was at least that far away.  We may not be DOA yet. 

I'm traveling right now and have not yet communicated with the command chief.  When I do I will have a better understanding of the patient's condition.   We've had to wait out national commanders before. This is nothing new.

Yeah Pat, his term is over in two more years unless the BOG extends his term which they can for one to three years at their descretion.
And I think he knows by now that this "committee" are not his biggest fans.
You may have waited out National Commanders before, but the rules are different now.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: shuman14 on April 20, 2015, 10:31:02 PM
That is not from the Horse's Mouth.

It is from the Bull's Mouth that heard it from the Sheep's Mouth that was on the barn with him. Who supposedly Heard the Horse in The Master Farm way over there...

 :P

You could at least attribute this to Mr Orwell... ::)

The CAP members in Blue pants are more equal than others.  ;)

So sayeth the Patron member who doesn't wear any pants!   >:D

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/83/87/d3/8387d38abc7314311f816355f6d25f94.jpg)
 ;D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 20, 2015, 11:58:08 PM
Ball's in your court JeffDG. >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 21, 2015, 08:07:24 AM
1Lt : "Hey Command Chief.......hey, can you man the snack bar for me at the cadet break?"

Command Chief : "Ummmmm..well, I'm a command chief"

1Lt : "yeah, ok Bob...I know.   Ok, you take out the trash and I'll man the snack bar."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on April 21, 2015, 08:41:32 AM
Quote
From NCO

1Lt : "Hey Command Chief.......hey, can you man the snack bar for me at the cadet break?"

Command Chief : "Ummmmm..well, I'm a command chief"

1Lt : "yeah, ok Bob...I know.   Ok, you take out the trash and I'll man the snack bar."



Command Chief: "Yeah sure Lt and with Pleasure! Cadet, please take out..."

 >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 21, 2015, 08:48:19 AM
I think the horse is officially dead.... >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 21, 2015, 08:54:30 AM
NO!  Im just about to break into some of my best material.  I mean this is stuff I never break into until at least the 16 page mark
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 21, 2015, 09:21:02 AM

1Lt : "Hey Command Chief.......hey, can you man the snack bar for me at the cadet break?"

Command Chief : "Ummmmm..well, I'm a command chief"

1Lt : "yeah, ok Bob...I know.   Ok, you take out the trash and I'll man the snack bar."

In the Air Force, a 1st Lt would never ask the Command CMSgt to man the snack bar or take out the trash. I'm not saying a CMSgt wouldn't do those things, but a 1st Lt wouldn't ask him or her to.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 21, 2015, 09:51:45 AM
Whats this got to do with the USAF?   In CAP we would.  Because at the end of the day... the job falls to pretty much anyone and everyone capable.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 21, 2015, 09:55:40 AM
In the Air Force, a 1st Lt would never ask the Command CMSgt to man the snack bar or take out the trash. I'm not saying a CMSgt wouldn't do those things, but a 1st Lt wouldn't ask him or her to.

No, but a newly minted 2d Lt might :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: kwe1009 on April 21, 2015, 09:57:22 AM

1Lt : "Hey Command Chief.......hey, can you man the snack bar for me at the cadet break?"

Command Chief : "Ummmmm..well, I'm a command chief"

1Lt : "yeah, ok Bob...I know.   Ok, you take out the trash and I'll man the snack bar."

In the Air Force, a 1st Lt would never ask the Command CMSgt to man the snack bar or take out the trash. I'm not saying a CMSgt wouldn't do those things, but a 1st Lt wouldn't ask him or her to.

But a 2nd Lt would!   ;D

What would happen in the Air Force really doesn't apply here.  I can see this happening.  Especially with a 1st Lt that was never in the military.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Tim Day on April 21, 2015, 10:08:20 AM
Whats this got to do with the USAF?   In CAP we would.  Because at the end of the day... the job falls to pretty much anyone and everyone capable.

Yeah, I guess I've yet to hear a clearly articulated requirement for having true NCOs in an organization with no enlisted / officer distinction and a single-path, linear, non-competitive career progression with no caps on time served. In some ways this doesn't bother me because apart from customs and courtesies rendered to grade worn I deal with fellow senior members based on their assigned jobs versus that grade.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Tim Day on April 21, 2015, 10:12:59 AM

1Lt : "Hey Command Chief.......hey, can you man the snack bar for me at the cadet break?"

Command Chief : "Ummmmm..well, I'm a command chief"

1Lt : "yeah, ok Bob...I know.   Ok, you take out the trash and I'll man the snack bar."

In the Air Force, a 1st Lt would never ask the Command CMSgt to man the snack bar or take out the trash. I'm not saying a CMSgt wouldn't do those things, but a 1st Lt wouldn't ask him or her to.

But a 2nd Lt would!   ;D

What would happen in the Air Force really doesn't apply here.  I can see this happening.  Especially with a 1st Lt that was never in the military.

And it would be our fault for failing to adequately cover customs and courtesies in our SM Level 1 training. On the other hand, based on my experience with senior NCOs in the Navy (Master Chief Petty Officers) and a few Air Force NCOs I know here's a more likely scenario:

2nd Lt and CMSgt are closing up the Operations Office for the evening after a long day. 2nd Lt grabs the trash bag on the way out. CMSgt: "Sir, I'll get that."

2nd Lt "No problem, Chief, I can get it."

CMSgt "Negative sir, I'll get it." Informal professional development follows where the Chief explains a little more about the role of Officers. 2nd Lt humbly hands Chief the trash bag but renews his commitment to take care of his troops and gains a little insight into the dedication of the people who are calling him "Sir" and depending on him to make decisions and represent their needs to the CO.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 21, 2015, 10:30:22 AM
In CAP we are all equals.  Our authority is derived based on our positions held not our ranks. I was a squadron commander of a fairly large unit as a 1Lt and stocked the fridge, manned the snack bar and spent time on my hands and knees with a green scratch pad during squadron clean up day.  Right next to my deputy commander who was a Major and our safety officer who was a retired LTC and USAF F4 pilot.  We did not assign jobs based on ranks.  We were volunteers getting done what needed to get done.  Not worry about customs and courtesies based on patches we wear.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: vorteks on April 21, 2015, 11:46:44 AM
... Because at the end of the day... the job falls to pretty much anyone and everyone capable.

Or incapable.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 21, 2015, 11:57:31 AM
In CAP we are all equals.  Our authority is derived based on our positions held not our ranks. I was a squadron commander of a fairly large unit as a 1Lt and stocked the fridge, manned the snack bar and spent time on my hands and knees with a green scratch pad during squadron clean up day.  Right next to my deputy commander who was a Major and our safety officer who was a retired LTC and USAF F4 pilot.  We did not assign jobs based on ranks.  We were volunteers getting done what needed to get done.  Not worry about customs and courtesies based on patches we wear.

Bingo. Goes back to what has been said about scrapping the entire rank system of SMs and going to a CG Aux style system. If you're in charge you get a stripe, or a silly hat, or a badge. When you're no longer in the position you just go back to being a Civil Airman....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: kwe1009 on April 21, 2015, 12:56:26 PM
In CAP we are all equals.  Our authority is derived based on our positions held not our ranks. I was a squadron commander of a fairly large unit as a 1Lt and stocked the fridge, manned the snack bar and spent time on my hands and knees with a green scratch pad during squadron clean up day.  Right next to my deputy commander who was a Major and our safety officer who was a retired LTC and USAF F4 pilot.  We did not assign jobs based on ranks.  We were volunteers getting done what needed to get done.  Not worry about customs and courtesies based on patches we wear.

Bingo. Goes back to what has been said about scrapping the entire rank system of SMs and going to a CG Aux style system. If you're in charge you get a stripe, or a silly hat, or a badge. When you're no longer in the position you just go back to being a Civil Airman....

I like the silly hat idea!

Emphasis added above.  Seriously, you are correct, rank in CAP really doesn't mean that much and having an enlisted and officer Sm structure just adds to the confusion.  I still don't see the point.  When I joined CAP my squadron commander asked if I wanted to be an officer or keep my stripes.  When I asked him if there would be any benefit to the squadron if I kept my stripes the reply was "no, and it would just confuse the cadets."  That was all I needed to hear and I became a CAP officer. 

My goal in CAP is to help others in and out of the organization.  If being an officer is what it takes to reach that goal then so be it.  I am very proud of the stripes that I earned in the Air Force but CAP is not the USAF so I do not see the need to continue wearing the stripes.  I mean no disrespect to those that choose to continue to wear stripes in CAP, this is just my personal feeling.

A volunteer organization needs to have an easy to understand and implement organization structure in order to succeed.  With that statement, having NCOs doe not fit that model unless we are going to implement it like it is on the cadet side where you join as a basic and then work your way up.  I think that is a little overkill but it is the only option that makes sense to me.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 21, 2015, 08:13:07 PM

Whats this got to do with the USAF?   In CAP we would.  Because at the end of the day... the job falls to pretty much anyone and everyone capable.

Yet your post implied it was a big deal. If it's not (and it shouldn't be), then why post the comment at all?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 21, 2015, 08:33:16 PM
In CAP we are all equals.  Our authority is derived based on our positions held not our ranks. I was a squadron commander of a fairly large unit as a 1Lt and stocked the fridge, manned the snack bar and spent time on my hands and knees with a green scratch pad during squadron clean up day.  Right next to my deputy commander who was a Major and our safety officer who was a retired LTC and USAF F4 pilot.  We did not assign jobs based on ranks.  We were volunteers getting done what needed to get done.  Not worry about customs and courtesies based on patches we wear.

And yet we insist in having military-style grades, titles and uniforms. We like being called captain, major and colonel for some things, but for others we through the "grade means nothing in CAP" line (and yes, I know you didn't say that on this post, but I've heard it said many times by many members). Why is it ok for a new member to be appointed as a 2d Lt after 6 months of membership, but when we talk about the possibility of that same member coming in as an enlisted, we raise hell?

After hearing all the debates about uniforms, awards, insignias and grades, I'm convinced CAP would be a better organization without them. The military doesn't spend as much time talking about these as CAP members do. Why? Didn't we join CAP to serve? If we're all equal, then why spend time criticizing this program and those working on it? Whether we like it or not, we have NCOs.

The new regulation didn't add NCOs; only provided a way for them to get promoted. Most of us like getting promoted, right? I still remember the uproar when the officer promotion requirements where made more difficult by adding additional TIG and an extra PD Level for each grade.

Maybe one day, new members will be able to join as airmen or go the NCO route. Maybe not. But why are we spending so much time and effort arguing about these things now? How does it affect us? We don't even know what the full plan or proposal is? We don't know if it will be approved? All we know is that some members would like to expand the NCO program. That's it.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 21, 2015, 08:48:50 PM
Why is it ok for a new member to be appointed as a 2d Lt after 6 months of membership, but when we talk about the possibility of that same member coming in as an enlisted, we raise hell?

Because 2Lt is the bottom of the heap, and NCO isn't. 2Lt is the starting point for an officer, and implies a beginner. The same is not true for NCOs, who are advanced doers, and supervisors.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 21, 2015, 08:52:40 PM
Why is it ok for a new member to be appointed as a 2d Lt after 6 months of membership, but when we talk about the possibility of that same member coming in as an enlisted, we raise hell?

Because 2Lt is the bottom of the heap, and NCO isn't. 2Lt is the starting point for an officer, and implies a beginner.

That is true of the military, but the selection, training and time it takes doesn't compare with CAP, not even a little. We require so little for someone to be a 2d Lt in CAP, so why do we require so much for someone to be a SSgt instead? By the way, I've been both so I can relate.

The same is not true for NCOs, who are advanced doers, and supervisors.

Perhaps we should start new members as Airman Basic and move from there.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 21, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
We require so little for someone to be a 2d Lt in CAP, so why do we require so much for someone to be a SSgt instead?

Because officers say "do this!" and then NCOs make it happen.  ;D

As an aside, has anyone else wished that we could make new senior members "Temporary Third Lieutenants?" Or do I just read too much Heinlein?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ColonelJack on April 22, 2015, 05:52:20 AM
We require so little for someone to be a 2d Lt in CAP, so why do we require so much for someone to be a SSgt instead?

Because officers say "do this!" and then NCOs make it happen.  ;D

As an aside, has anyone else wished that we could make new senior members "Temporary Third Lieutenants?" Or do I just read too much Heinlein?

There is no such thing as "too much Heinlein."

Jack
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 22, 2015, 10:25:56 AM

Whats this got to do with the USAF?   In CAP we would.  Because at the end of the day... the job falls to pretty much anyone and everyone capable.

Yet your post implied it was a big deal. If it's not (and it shouldn't be), then why post the comment at all?

My post depicts how CAP works in real life.  In the end, the job just gets done with no relevance to what rank you decided to wear. Officer or enlisted.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 22, 2015, 11:43:33 AM
Great "Starship Troopers" reference!...hell, yes, let's make new SMs "Temporary 3rd LTs" -- and let them SATY there till completion of Level 2!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 22, 2015, 08:01:51 PM
Great "Starship Troopers" reference!...hell, yes, let's make new SMs "Temporary 3rd LTs" -- and let them SATY there till completion of Level 2!

The only down side to the idea is that none of us are supernumerary....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ColonelJack on April 23, 2015, 05:53:50 AM
Great "Starship Troopers" reference!...hell, yes, let's make new SMs "Temporary 3rd LTs" -- and let them SATY there till completion of Level 2!

The only down side to the idea is that none of us are supernumerary....

"Come on, you apes!  You want to live forever?"

Jack
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Panache on April 23, 2015, 06:13:56 AM
As much as many of us don't want to believe it, I think the unspoken but real conflict the AF has with us as "officers" is that often we don't share the same cultural underpinning. Look at LSTHiker's post with the degree stats: the fewer experiences we have in common with AF officers, the less likely we are to be accepted as peers...and when we wear blues with officer grade on them, we are outwardly claiming, at some level, that we're "peers."

Until that point when they start paying CAP officers and give them authority and responsibilities under UCMJ, CAP officers won't be close to being peers with AF officers, no matter how many degrees CAP officers have.

So, basically, never.

Sad that you have such a low opinion of yourself and CAP.  :-\

Sad that you feel the need to project your opinion onto myself.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NIN on April 23, 2015, 06:38:57 AM
The only down side to the idea is that none of us are supernumerary....

I've been supernumerary a few times. It was kind of cool :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: ZigZag911 on April 23, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
Great "Starship Troopers" reference!...hell, yes, let's make new SMs "Temporary 3rd LTs" -- and let them SATY there till completion of Level 2!

The only down side to the idea is that none of us are supernumerary....

True...but we don't need to tell them so!
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: MSgt Van on April 24, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
I find it sad that civilian volunteers, although dedicated to their volunteer organization, would ever consider themselves peers to a military officer. I think that's the best argument to get rid of the NCO program, and the use of military uniforms and rank insignia altogether in CAP.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 24, 2015, 10:30:40 PM
I find it sad that civilian volunteers, although dedicated to their volunteer organization, would ever consider themselves peers to a military officer. I think that's the best argument to get rid of the NCO program, and the use of military uniforms and rank insignia altogether in CAP.

Why don't you ask to can the CAP at the same time while you are at it.

The actions of one or some is not a valid reason to attack all.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on April 24, 2015, 10:34:34 PM
Msgt Van,

This isn't some sort of contest about whether civilians are "peers" to folks serving in the military.  No one could win such a contest.  This, for better or worse, is America, and nobody is inherently better than anyone one else simply because of their military status.

CAP and our colleagues in the US armed forces have a great deal in common:  both are volunteering to serve their communities, states, and nation.


Let's focus on what we have in common, and less on who is better than whom.

Respectfully,

Ned Lee
Retired Army officer, and Current CAP volunteer
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: MSgt Van on April 25, 2015, 12:03:36 AM
I didn't mean to imply that military veterans are better than anybody else, it just seems to me that CAP is trying to create an officer /enlisted tiered system where I really don't see the benefit.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on April 25, 2015, 12:29:41 AM
CAP has had officers and NCOs since before there was a United States Air Force.

No one is trying to "create" anything.

We are tweaking our NCO system to allow for promotions and possibly some initial appointments beyond what we have now.  We've tweaked both the officer and NCO systems before, and will likely do so again in the future.  Kinda like each of the military services.

Really not all that much to talk about really.  It's still a minor work in progress.

But is worth remembering that every single military and military-like organization since the Roman legions have had officers and NCOs.  We would be unusual if we did not.

Peace, sir, and thank you for your service.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Alaric on April 25, 2015, 10:36:50 AM
CAP has had officers and NCOs since before there was a United States Air Force.

No one is trying to "create" anything.

We are tweaking our NCO system to allow for promotions and possibly some initial appointments beyond what we have now.  We've tweaked both the officer and NCO systems before, and will likely do so again in the future.  Kinda like each of the military services.

Really not all that much to talk about really.  It's still a minor work in progress.

But is worth remembering that every single military and military-like organization since the Roman legions have had officers and NCOs.  We would be unusual if we did not.

Peace, sir, and thank you for your service.

Col. Lee,

  Whereas I agree that every military organization has had NCOs as well as officers, however, these were generally full time organizations.  I have no dog in the hunt of whether to have NCOs but every active duty military person I've ever spoken to has told me that NCOs are the specialists of the military as well as the people who make sure the work gets done by the men in the field.  Officers provide overall leadership and guidance.  NCOs in these organizations outnumber the officers significantly.  What will be the role of NCOs in our part time, volunteer organization where they will be far outnumbered by officers?

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 25, 2015, 11:32:25 AM
The same as all those other organizations.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: NCRblues on April 25, 2015, 01:58:35 PM
The same as all those other organizations.

No, not the same. Not even close.

We have 2nd Lt Squadron/CC's, with ex Wing Kings as deputies. The "NCO's" of CAP will do the same thing as every other volunteer member.

 (work hard in a basically thankless job, take out the trash at the end of the night, empty the coffee pot and the thousand other jobs we all do)

WIWAD, the NCO's and Officers didn't do much trash taking, the shoppett made the coffee, and some didn't even work that hard.

 Stripes or bars, it makes no difference in CAP.

Not sure why we are even discussing this still as it has been made pretty clear the current NAT/CC isn't on board.

(BTW, how great is it to be at work and getting paid to CAPTALK huh?)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: kwe1009 on April 25, 2015, 02:10:59 PM
In the military there are jobs that only NCOs perform and jobs that only Officers perform (not just being commanders).  So what exactly will NCOs do that Officers will not do in CAP?  If there is no separation of duties then what exactly is the purpose of having a CAP NCO corp?  I have been trying to understand this since this new program came out. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Al Sayre on April 25, 2015, 02:53:34 PM
Officers will get more zeros on their paychecks...   >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 26, 2015, 03:23:48 PM
at least a check with zeros is still a check. :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Ned on April 28, 2015, 02:40:14 PM
What will be the role of NCOs in our part time, volunteer organization where they will be far outnumbered by officers?

Sorry, missed your question somehow.  My bad.

And I hope you will forgive me for quoting myself, but I think it at least partially answers your question.


Just in the Cadet Program tent, I could put 1200 CAP NCOs to work tomorrow by assigning one or two to each cadet and composite unit to serve as Leadership Officers.  Essentially by definition, NCOs have years of experience mentoring and developing junior leaders in a military environment.  And since every single cadet must develop their followership and  leadership skills initially as an airman and cadet NCO, senior member NCOs could and would provide outstanding and needed support.

(Of course, we have a terrific CP without significant numbers of CAP NCOs, so I can't claim that CAP NCOs are absolutely crucial.) 

But our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.

If  we had a mature CAP senior member enlisted/NCO structure in CP, at the squadron I would expect to see SSgts and Tsgts working more or less directly with the troops; directly monitoring training and mentoring the cadet instructors for things like D & C, and acting as instructors.  I would normally expect senior NCOs (MSgt +) to do things like training schedules, coordinate and rehearse instructors, mentor both the junior NCOs and the cadet staff, conduct CP-related professional development for the senior member side, and also serve in additional duties for the unit as a whole (things like unit First Sergeant, Personnel and Admin NCO, etc.).

At the group, wing, and region level I would expect senior NCOs to work as SMEs in CP.  I would probably see them working on CI and SAV teams, maintaining associated records and providing administrative support, directly coordinating with their counterparts at lower and higher levels, planning CP activities at their level, producing reports and maintaining electronic data, and mentoring and training NCOs at lower echelons.

At things like encampments, NCOs would provide valuable support on the tactical staff, liaisoning with host facilities, as well as serving as  logisticians and administrators. 

And at all levels, NCOs - like all SMs - would be eligible for the dreaded "similar and related duties as required."  8)

(Remember, this is a vision for a mature and self-generating enlisted structure, NOT what we have today.  Today, our NCOs come to us pre-trained in leadership and organizational skills by Uncle Sam and all we have to add are the CAP-specific skills.  This may well change as we tweak the program to allow non-prior service CAP NCOs).
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 28, 2015, 03:05:00 PM
In the military there are jobs that only NCOs perform and jobs that only Officers perform (not just being commanders).  So what exactly will NCOs do that Officers will not do in CAP?  If there is no separation of duties then what exactly is the purpose of having a CAP NCO corp?  I have been trying to understand this since this new program came out.

You bring some valid questions, but this could also be said of CAP officers. Many of the duties that CAP officers do are done by NCOs in the military. So what is the purpose of making every adult member a CAP officer?

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the role of CAP NCOs, we should rethink the role of CAP officers. If CAP officers' functions are redefined as those roles involving managing, directing or commanding, then having a CAP enlisted force running the day-to-day training, programs and operations makes sense.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on April 28, 2015, 05:31:06 PM
Good gravy leg...this isn't as hard as it's made out to be, and others have touched on this in other related posts. I will add my two cents worth.

Officers: command structure, department heads (when available), pilots, mission command staff. Leaders. Administrators. Managers.

NCOs: worker bees, ground team leaders, instructors, administrative positions. Assistant-to's. Drivers. Observer/scanners (this can also be done by officers, but having an either/or opens up more possibilities). Freeing up the actual work from officers to do their jobs.

I also have a different grade structure in mind for Senior member airmen (age 18 to 22), grade being dependent on what age they join, college degrees, and what they WANT to do in the program. I have a chart somewhere with the requirements as I see them. It could work with some finessing. I mean, the state defense forces have strict requirements from their parent organizations regarding officerships and NCOs and whatnot, why don't we? Why CAN'T we?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 28, 2015, 05:34:53 PM
Interesting, pilots are officers, but Observers (who are commonly the mission commanders) are not.

There's actually nothing about piloting that makes them inherently officer roles.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on April 28, 2015, 05:52:25 PM
How many NCOs are piloting military aircraft? They are usually crew chiefs, loadmasters, and other support roles. I see the observer as an adjunct of a pilot, doing everything BUT flying the plane. If a member wants to be a pilot, then fine, go through the officer training aspect. I never said observer/scanner is a sole NCO job in my scenario, but a job that can be done by both. Any room for a non-college graduate CFI-I? Absolutely, as there were a plenitude of non-college graduate pilots during WWII. Any room for a SNCO with a Master's Degree? Of course, as there are many NCOs in the Real Military with advanced degrees who either can't go to OTS/OCS or don't want to.
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 28, 2015, 06:08:00 PM
Unlike the military, in CAP qualifications and duty assignments are not the same thing. In the Air Force, for example, an officer becomes a pilot and then assumes other additional duties or staff roles as he or she progresses in their career. An Air Force pilot does not get qualified as a navigator, loadmaster or crew chief. And if one of these becomes a pilot, they stop working on their previous roles.

In CAP, a member can be qualified as a GTL, MP, GBD, AOBD and IC regardless of grade or duty position. We could, in theory, restrict some of these qualifications to CAP officers, but I don't see that happening. If we had to divide functions between officers and NCOs (assuming we had enough NCOs), it's more likely that staff duties would be assigned depending on grade, but ES assignments would continue to be based on qualification.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: kwe1009 on April 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM
In the military there are jobs that only NCOs perform and jobs that only Officers perform (not just being commanders).  So what exactly will NCOs do that Officers will not do in CAP?  If there is no separation of duties then what exactly is the purpose of having a CAP NCO corp?  I have been trying to understand this since this new program came out.

You bring some valid questions, but this could also be said of CAP officers. Many of the duties that CAP officers do are done by NCOs in the military. So what is the purpose of making every adult member a CAP officer?

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the role of CAP NCOs, we should rethink the role of CAP officers. If CAP officers' functions are redefined as those roles involving managing, directing or commanding, then having a CAP enlisted force running the day-to-day training, programs and operations makes sense.

I don't see that being a very good way to go in a volunteer organization.  To limit a volunteer's opportunities by creating a caste system like exists in the military has way more downside than upside.  We should not create artificial barriers for our volunteers who wish to serve.
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 28, 2015, 07:00:28 PM
In the military there are jobs that only NCOs perform and jobs that only Officers perform (not just being commanders).  So what exactly will NCOs do that Officers will not do in CAP?  If there is no separation of duties then what exactly is the purpose of having a CAP NCO corp?  I have been trying to understand this since this new program came out.

You bring some valid questions, but this could also be said of CAP officers. Many of the duties that CAP officers do are done by NCOs in the military. So what is the purpose of making every adult member a CAP officer?

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the role of CAP NCOs, we should rethink the role of CAP officers. If CAP officers' functions are redefined as those roles involving managing, directing or commanding, then having a CAP enlisted force running the day-to-day training, programs and operations makes sense.

I don't see that being a very good way to go in a volunteer organization.  To limit a volunteer's opportunities by creating a caste system like exists in the military has way more downside than upside.  We should not create artificial barriers for our volunteers who wish to serve.

First of all, calling the division of roles between officers and enlisted a "caste system" is not fair to the thousands of service men and women, both officers and enlisted, who work in close collaboration to protect our nation and way of life. Second, what do you think the purpose of having different grades or ranks is if not to divide functions and responsibilities among members? If you're not going to perform a role or function associated with being an officer, then why do you need to be one at all? Grades and promotions for the sole purpose of recognition is a poor way of using a system that has been around for thousands of years to denote responsibility and authority.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 28, 2015, 10:04:53 PM
^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: SarDragon on April 28, 2015, 10:38:23 PM
Caste system indeed.

The Navy used to have enlisted pilots, but the program was discontinued essentially because of the "us vs. them" attitudes that existed in the aviation community.

Similar attitudes existed when the LDO Aviator program was going. The college educated pilots weren't always welcoming to the non-college educated folks who were recruited from the NCO corps.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Al Sayre on April 29, 2015, 07:25:16 AM
^^+1

As to pilots as officers and not observers, there would be some precedent for Officer observers, for example AF Navigators/RIO's and Navy Flight Officers(NFO's).  Scanner and aerial photographer duties would be more in line with an NCO function.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on April 29, 2015, 07:48:45 AM
Some out there may not like this, but during the Second World War at least, there were NCOs in some Air Forces flying as pilots. Our airplanes are not more complicated than those fighter airplanes. To the contrary, those fighter airplanes were more hi-tech than our Cessnas!

In bomber crews, the flight engineer was an NCO! And in more than one ocassion, an NCO brought back--piloted--a badly damaged bomber when the pilots were injured or disabled.

In other words, our pilots do not need to be officers. They can be NCOs.

Now if our airplanes were as complicated as today's fighters, I would rethink those comments...

(Ducking waiting for some of you to send stones, and comments like "What do ya know, ya ar not a pilot!"
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on April 29, 2015, 08:15:48 AM
Some out there may not like this, but during the Second World War at least, there were NCOs in some Air Forces flying as pilots. Our airplanes are not more complicated than those fighter airplanes. To the contrary, those fighter airplanes were more hi-tech than our Cessnas!

In bomber crews, the flight engineer was an NCO! And in more than one ocassion, an NCO brought back--piloted--a badly damaged bomber when the pilots were injured or disabled.

In other words, our pilots do not need to be officers. They can be NCOs.

Now if our airplanes were as complicated as today's fighters, I would rethink those comments...

(Ducking waiting for some of you to send stones, and comments like "What do ya know, ya ar not a pilot!"

Not arguing that point. My point, roundabout as though it may be, is that if we are to have a military hierarchy like our parents org, then the pilot ought to be an officer, just like in the Air Force. Or Navy. Or Marines. Army has a different system, with Warrant Officer and helo pilots, but their fixed wing drivers are officers. NCOs, to my mind, are in support roles augmenting the officers and acting on their behalf. Or did I miss something?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 29, 2015, 08:52:11 AM
Army has loads of WO fixed wing pilots.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on April 29, 2015, 09:15:34 AM
Then I will wait for someone to bring up the argument "Our parent organization flies jet airplanes and their pilots are officers. We have officer pilots. Therefore we must have jets!"

 >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Garibaldi on April 29, 2015, 09:23:33 AM
Then I will wait for someone to bring up the argument "Our parent organization flies jet airplanes and their pilots are officers. We have officer pilots. Therefore we must have jets!"

 >:D

Since we are moving over to ACC, we just might. 8)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Flying Pig on April 29, 2015, 09:37:42 AM
Im waiting for a CAP Officer/NCO relationship to be cited in a divorce proceeding. You know its coming
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 29, 2015, 10:00:28 AM
Im waiting for a CAP Officer/NCO relationship to be cited in a divorce proceeding. You know its coming

Of course some idiot will.  After all, remember what happened in July 1947:

Quote
'Major' Sought Salutes; Wife Seeking Divorce
MILWAUKEE, (UP)—Mrs. Rosalyn W sought a divorce today, charging that her husband, Clifford, demanded that she "salute him." Her suit charged that W, a business executive and a major in the Civil Air patrol, told her to address him "by his military title at all times."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: kwe1009 on April 29, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
In the military there are jobs that only NCOs perform and jobs that only Officers perform (not just being commanders).  So what exactly will NCOs do that Officers will not do in CAP?  If there is no separation of duties then what exactly is the purpose of having a CAP NCO corp?  I have been trying to understand this since this new program came out.

You bring some valid questions, but this could also be said of CAP officers. Many of the duties that CAP officers do are done by NCOs in the military. So what is the purpose of making every adult member a CAP officer?

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the role of CAP NCOs, we should rethink the role of CAP officers. If CAP officers' functions are redefined as those roles involving managing, directing or commanding, then having a CAP enlisted force running the day-to-day training, programs and operations makes sense.

I don't see that being a very good way to go in a volunteer organization.  To limit a volunteer's opportunities by creating a caste system like exists in the military has way more downside than upside.  We should not create artificial barriers for our volunteers who wish to serve.

First of all, calling the division of roles between officers and enlisted a "caste system" is not fair to the thousands of service men and women, both officers and enlisted, who work in close collaboration to protect our nation and way of life. Second, what do you think the purpose of having different grades or ranks is if not to divide functions and responsibilities among members? If you're not going to perform a role or function associated with being an officer, then why do you need to be one at all? Grades and promotions for the sole purpose of recognition is a poor way of using a system that has been around for thousands of years to denote responsibility and authority.

As an Air Force Senior Master Sergeant, I feel the use of the term "caste system" is accurate when talking about the separation between officers and enlisted.  We are divided and no matter how close we work there is still "us" and "them."  The UCMJ makes sure that is stays that way too.  Quite frankly this system is probably outdated and needs to be reviewed as their are many enlisted with much better leadership skills than officers.  Having a piece of paper (college degree) does not necessarily make you smarter or a better leader.

My argument against having officers and enlisted is purely in regards to CAP.  This is a volunteer organization and limiting people to a certain set of tasks based on if they are officer or enlisted is not good for the organization.  I have not heard a single argument yet for how having an NCO corps would be a benefit to CAP.  That is the bottom line, is there a benefit to the organization that outweighs all of the negatives?  If not then this program needs to go away.  We do not need to create artificial barriers to people who want to give their time and money to CAP.

Here is a possible situation: John joins CAP as "enlisted" because he is an IT person and all of the IT duties are handled by enlisted.  After 15 years he doesn't want to do that any longer and wants to do something that only Majors and above can do.  Even though he has been in CAP for a very long time and has more training and education than is required for the position, he will only be a 2nd Lt and not be allowed to do that job.  He is discouraged and quits CAP.

I think this something that can happen.  Yes you can put rules in place so that maybe John can be promoted to Major but if you are going to something like that then you are just creating administrative burden that isn't necessary if you just leave everyone as an officer.  Seriously, I think a case could be made to have all Senior Members be NCOs and give temporary promotions to those filling command positions.  Rank really doesn't matter in CAP except for the chain of command and this would actually be less confusing. 

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 29, 2015, 12:06:56 PM
Some out there may not like this, but during the Second World War at least, there were NCOs in some Air Forces flying as pilots

CAP has an award named after one of them.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 29, 2015, 12:13:20 PM

Here is a possible situation: John joins CAP as "enlisted" because he is an IT person and all of the IT duties are handled by enlisted.  After 15 years he doesn't want to do that any longer and wants to do something that only Majors and above can do.  Even though he has been in CAP for a very long time and has more training and education than is required for the position, he will only be a 2nd Lt and not be allowed to do that job.  He is discouraged and quits CAP.

I think this something that can happen.  Yes you can put rules in place so that maybe John can be promoted to Major but if you are going to something like that then you are just creating administrative burden that isn't necessary if you just leave everyone as an officer.  Seriously, I think a case could be made to have all Senior Members be NCOs and give temporary promotions to those filling command positions.  Rank really doesn't matter in CAP except for the chain of command and this would actually be less confusing.

I think this can be easily mitigated by using some form of time in grade transition formula. If an NCO has promoted 4 times in 15 years, give them the opportunity to promote 4 times in the officer track as if they had completed the time in grade requirement already. They still have to complete the professional development, etc. but they don't have to deal with the time cooldown.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 29, 2015, 12:27:37 PM

^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.

Since your comments are based on ignorance, I accept your apology. I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of "caste system". And while you're at it, maybe read about the history of military grade and rank system.

Please answer this, if we don't have a division of duties, responsibilities and authority in CAP based on grade, why do we need them at all?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 05:38:44 PM
just finished my report from last night's NCO committee meeting.  Just sent it to the region CC for review.  Once he gets a chance to read it I'll post my notes here...or the end of next week which ever happens first.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 06:14:23 PM
-   Blazer Name Plate Device
        -   Vanguard ready to produce
        -   Waiting for Suzie Parker to send out survey to NCOs to determine how many we need
-   Strategic Communications Plan
        -   Still working with NHQ on how best to get the word out.
        -   Gen Vazquez and Mr. Salvador request success stories
                 -   From the field
                 -   From officers at all levels about how having NCO involved improved operations/outcomes/etc.
                 -   Send any stories to Chief Eldridge CC the rest of the committee.
                 -   Will be developed into new articles to be sent out to the field.
                 -    No more than 2 pages long.
-   Promotable Positions
        o   Duty positions sent to 20-1 guys.
                   Still arguing about the title for group level NCO. (Superintendent vs NCO)
                   20-1 is going through re-write to include NHQ structure may be a while before done.
        o   Duty Position will be sent to E-services as soon as ready…even if 20-1 is not ready.
        o   New Committee Appointment letter sent out.
-   Waivers for SMSgt to attend NCS.
        o   SMSgt will be allowed to attend NCS when the new CAPR 50-17 is published.
        o   Until then send waiver request to NHQ and they will be approved.
-   Changes to CAPR 35-5 Approved for next publication date.
        o   Expect change in the next 30 days.
        o   6 month waiting period before putting on stripe is gone. (Same as officers now).
        o   Promotions on Active Duty now affect promotions in CAP (Same as officers now).
        o   Promotion boards changed. 
                   We no longer have our own promotion board.
                   We use the same promotion boards as officers
                   It is highly encouraged/recommended that there be an NCO on the board if an NCO is being considered for promotion.
        o   Advanced CAP Officer Rank for AD Enlisted rank is back into 35-5.
        o   Change to definitions of who can become a CAP NCO….any prior/current service enlisted personnel are now allowed to
                become NCOs.  E1-E4 are now allowed to apply.
-   Phase III
        o   Per General Vasquez
        o   The Phase III concept (allowing non-prior military members to become NCOs) is on permanent hold.
        o   Reasoning is
                   Our move to ACC looming and the new opportunities and
                   roles that the move will bring and with the wording in the original agreement with the SECAF
                   We will be upsetting that strong back bone if we bring in untrained and untested personnel into the NCO corps
         o   Not really a major issue.
                   Phase III was not expected to be started for another 2-3 years at least.
                   Proceed with Phase II building the NCO PME with the idea that Phase III will/may be implemented in the future.
-   Phase II
        o   Recruiting Plan
                   The Officer to NCO matrix is still running the command approval expect an answer by the end of May
                   Clarification about Former and Current E-1-E-4.
                   Expect more information and a solid plan by the National Conference.
        o   PME
                  Already some draft PME courses and ideas are being submitted.
                  Expect drafts to be sent out to committee by end of month.
                  Working goal to have something ready to present at the national conference so we can fill in the details and start implementing
                        it by next fiscal year.
-   NCO Promotions
        o   All NCO promotions are being sent by NHQ to Chief Eldridge just to make sure everyone is on the same page and we are all dotting
                our I’s and crossing our T’s.   This will slow down the promotion process some…but everyone is still learning and we keep changing
                things…so NHQ is erring on the side of caution.
-   NCO Road Show
        o   Expect by National Board for there to be a canned “road show” ready to be sent to the NCO team to take to the units.
-   National Conference
        o   Intent is to have a NCO committee meeting on Wednesday Evening (26 Aug) starting at 1630 or 1730 and running for at least an
                hour.
        o   Also Chief Eldridge will be holding and NCO seminar on Friday for anyone interested.
        o   Regional Reps are highly encouraged to attend this year’s conference.
        o   Regional Reps should ask their Region Commanders is there any funds to help them get to the conference (I’m already covered
                boss…but if we got any money for the wing NCS it would be nice to have them there).
        o   Chief Eldridge is working with NHQ to see if there is any help from their end.
-   Next meeting
        o   Focus on Strategic Communications plan and PD courses.
        o   Deal with any feedback from CSAG
-   Any questions, suggestions, inputs or feedback from the field please Contact me at lordmonar@yahoo.com or 702-767-6709
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 29, 2015, 07:02:01 PM
An unfortunate step in the wrong direction in eliminating the waiting period to get stripes.  Both officers and NCOs SHOULD have to wait a bit before being eligible for any sort of advanced promotion (even former military). 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 07:07:57 PM
An unfortunate step in the wrong direction in eliminating the waiting period to get stripes.  Both officers and NCOs SHOULD have to wait a bit before being eligible for any sort of advanced promotion (even former military).
I agree.....but we take what we get and work on the little things as we go along.   Baby steps.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 29, 2015, 10:52:31 PM
An unfortunate step in the wrong direction in eliminating the waiting period to get stripes.  Both officers and NCOs SHOULD have to wait a bit before being eligible for any sort of advanced promotion (even former military).

CAPR 35-5 still allows some leeway since "such promotions are neither automatic nor mandatory, but are at the discretion of the promoting authority". I don't require a specific amount of time, but do expect members requesting military promotions to be actively contributing at a level commensurable with the grade being requested.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 29, 2015, 11:30:50 PM
702-767-XXXX

Did you really want to post your phone number?  Cause, I think I could have some fun with that number  >:D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 11:48:04 PM
702-767-XXXX

Did you really want to post your phone number?  Cause, I think I could have some fun with that number  >:D
I did....it is public knowledge...posted here before.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 29, 2015, 11:49:39 PM
702-767-XXXX

Did you really want to post your phone number?  Cause, I think I could have some fun with that number  >:D
I did....it is public knowledge...posted here before.

Alright, well I am flying to Reno in the next few months.  Perhaps I will give you a call at 2am from my hotel phone :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 11:53:39 PM
An unfortunate step in the wrong direction in eliminating the waiting period to get stripes.  Both officers and NCOs SHOULD have to wait a bit before being eligible for any sort of advanced promotion (even former military).

CAPR 35-5 still allows some leeway since "such promotions are neither automatic nor mandatory, but are at the discretion of the promoting authority". I don't require a specific amount of time, but do expect members requesting military promotions to be actively contributing at a level commensurable with the grade being requested.
Not saying you are right or wrong.....in theory at least.....but explain to me the concept where a real USAF Lt Col has to be "actively contributing at a level commensurate with the grade being requested".....but Joe Bag of Donuts gets it for just being the squadron supply officer for a long time.

If you are being honest and fair....you just forward the CAPF 2 up the chain for approval.

NOW having just said that.........I would like to see that change sometime in the future.....but  that the difference between what is right now....and what should be right down the road.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 29, 2015, 11:54:20 PM
702-767-XXXX

Did you really want to post your phone number?  Cause, I think I could have some fun with that number  >:D
I did....it is public knowledge...posted here before.

Alright, well I am flying to Reno in the next few months.  Perhaps I will give you a call at 2am from my hotel phone :)
I'll just say I'm talking to Jake from State Farm...it will be cool.  :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 09:00:05 AM
An unfortunate step in the wrong direction in eliminating the waiting period to get stripes.  Both officers and NCOs SHOULD have to wait a bit before being eligible for any sort of advanced promotion (even former military).

CAPR 35-5 still allows some leeway since "such promotions are neither automatic nor mandatory, but are at the discretion of the promoting authority". I don't require a specific amount of time, but do expect members requesting military promotions to be actively contributing at a level commensurable with the grade being requested.
Not saying you are right or wrong.....in theory at least.....but explain to me the concept where a real USAF Lt Col has to be "actively contributing at a level commensurate with the grade being requested".....but Joe Bag of Donuts gets it for just being the squadron supply officer for a long time.

I see your point and agree. Many specialty tracks need to be updated to prevent that from happening. Our current system is not fair at all. An Operations Officer has to serve at the wing to earn a Master Rating (an ESO for 3 years!), but an Admin Officer never has to leave the squadron. We definitely need some revamping in that area.

If you are being honest and fair....you just forward the CAPF 2 up the chain for approval.

I believe that if I treat all military promotions the same way I'm being fair. I know what I posted before, but what I'm really looking for is to see that the military officer is actively pursuing training, progressing and contributing to the unit. I've seen many military Lt Cols join, get the grade and then do nothing beyond Level 1. Worse, I've seen many military Lt Cols not do much at the unit at all.

NOW having just said that.........I would like to see that change sometime in the future.....but  that the difference between what is right now....and what should be right down the road.

I would like it changed as well. Out of curiosity, why remove the 6-month waiting period for NCOs instead of adding the same period to officers?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 30, 2015, 09:15:12 AM
I see your point and agree. Many specialty tracks need to be updated to prevent that from happening. Our current system is not fair at all. An Operations Officer has to serve at the wing to earn a Master Rating (an ESO for 3 years!), but an Admin Officer never has to leave the squadron. We definitely need some revamping in that area.

A change that I think is ultimately coming as it seems more and more specialty tracks are moving to a Group or higher position for master rating. 

I would like it changed as well. Out of curiosity, why remove the 6-month waiting period for NCOs instead of adding the same period to officers?

Just a guess, but probably because the officer promotions are not within the line of fire for the NCOs.  So they probably had little leverage to ask for officers to wait 6 months before promotion. 
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 30, 2015, 09:32:43 AM

^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.

Since your comments are based on ignorance, I accept your apology. I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of "caste system". And while you're at it, maybe read about the history of military grade and rank system.

Please answer this, if we don't have a division of duties, responsibilities and authority in CAP based on grade, why do we need them at all?

From our friends at Wiki Pedia: "Several characteristics distinguish a caste system. The first is the tendency toward endogamy (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-endogamy.htm), meaning that people marry within the same caste exclusively. Caste mobility is also extremely rare; one cannot transform from a laborer to a scholar except in very rare circumstances, for example. Higher castes traditionally hold all of the political power, and the castes may be divided further through language, culture, and economics (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-economics.htm). Within a caste system, each member generally knows his or her place, and your social status is usually apparent to others as well." 

In a military society, this fits.  You may wish to go over the UCMJ, again, where this is pretty much explained in detail.  We can agree to disagree, however ignorance is something I am always willing to consider... :angel:

To answer your question; we don't need a military grade structure to show a division of duties and/or responsibilities in CAP. It is an affectation desired by our association with the Air Force, and by our history as part of the War Dept. during WW2.  Having  NCO's in CAP is a choice.  Our 40 years without a formal NCO Corps has shown the lack of need for NCO's.  We can reorganize things however we choose, but IMHO, we could be spending our resources in areas that really need improving.
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 12:12:44 PM

^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.

Since your comments are based on ignorance, I accept your apology. I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of "caste system". And while you're at it, maybe read about the history of military grade and rank system.

Please answer this, if we don't have a division of duties, responsibilities and authority in CAP based on grade, why do we need them at all?

From our friends at Wiki Pedia: "Several characteristics distinguish a caste system. The first is the tendency toward endogamy (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-endogamy.htm), meaning that people marry within the same caste exclusively. Caste mobility is also extremely rare; one cannot transform from a laborer to a scholar except in very rare circumstances, for example. Higher castes traditionally hold all of the political power, and the castes may be divided further through language, culture, and economics (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-economics.htm). Within a caste system, each member generally knows his or her place, and your social status is usually apparent to others as well." 

In a military society, this fits.  You may wish to go over the UCMJ, again, where this is pretty much explained in detail.  We can agree to disagree, however ignorance is something I am always willing to consider... :angel:

To answer your question; we don't need a military grade structure to show a division of duties and/or responsibilities in CAP. It is an affectation desired by our association with the Air Force, and by our history as part of the War Dept. during WW2.  Having  NCO's in CAP is a choice.  Our 40 years without a formal NCO Corps has shown the lack of need for NCO's.  We can reorganize things however we choose, but IMHO, we could be spending our resources in areas that really need improving.

I think the solution is to eliminate all military-style grades in CAP and either not have grades at all or have grade insignias that reflect PD Level progression only (similar to the lines/stripes used for Flight Officer grades; one line per level). Another alternative is to have temporary grades associated with duty positions while holding that office. The bottom line is we shouldn't wear military-style officer grades if they're not going to be associated with similar roles, duties, responsibilities and authority, which are normally associated with those grades.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 30, 2015, 12:16:28 PM

^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.

Since your comments are based on ignorance, I accept your apology. I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of "caste system". And while you're at it, maybe read about the history of military grade and rank system.

Please answer this, if we don't have a division of duties, responsibilities and authority in CAP based on grade, why do we need them at all?

From our friends at Wiki Pedia: "Several characteristics distinguish a caste system. The first is the tendency toward endogamy (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-endogamy.htm), meaning that people marry within the same caste exclusively. Caste mobility is also extremely rare; one cannot transform from a laborer to a scholar except in very rare circumstances, for example. Higher castes traditionally hold all of the political power, and the castes may be divided further through language, culture, and economics (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-economics.htm). Within a caste system, each member generally knows his or her place, and your social status is usually apparent to others as well." 

In a military society, this fits.  You may wish to go over the UCMJ, again, where this is pretty much explained in detail.  We can agree to disagree, however ignorance is something I am always willing to consider... :angel:

To answer your question; we don't need a military grade structure to show a division of duties and/or responsibilities in CAP. It is an affectation desired by our association with the Air Force, and by our history as part of the War Dept. during WW2.  Having  NCO's in CAP is a choice.  Our 40 years without a formal NCO Corps has shown the lack of need for NCO's.  We can reorganize things however we choose, but IMHO, we could be spending our resources in areas that really need improving.

I think the solution is to eliminate all military-style grades in CAP and either not have grades at all or have grade insignias that reflect PD Level progression only (similar to the lines/stripes used for Flight Officer grades; one line per level). Another alternative is to have temporary grades associated with duty positions while holding that office. The bottom line is we shouldn't wear military-style officer grades if they're not going to be associated with similar roles, duties, responsibilities and authority that are normally associated with those grades.

This has been repeated so many times, and I am really curious as to the rationale behind the organization's reluctance to adopt it. It makes sense. When we have lieutenant colonels serving at the squadron level in positions far below their perceived level of expertise and lieutenants serving in positions far above their perceived level of expertise, you have to wonder why there is such institutional inertia that is driving the status quo.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 12:29:16 PM
People like rank?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 30, 2015, 12:31:08 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 12:39:01 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 30, 2015, 12:58:05 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 30, 2015, 01:03:12 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 01:08:43 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...
Well....CAPTALK is not always representitive of the CAP in general.   That is always something we have to remember on these discusssions.   The efforts to make a change to the rank program is always going to butt up agains other memers wants, desires and concepts.   One of the reason why we take what we can get as opposed to what someone thinks is "right".

Take for instance the six months wait.   We on the NCO committee thought that it was a good idea for everyone to wait at least six months before they get any rank.   Leadership disagreed.....so we settled for just making the NCO system match up what the officers are doing.   We can work making it "right" later if we can get the buy in from leadership and members.

Strenghing up the PD system across the board is something that we need to do IMHO whether we do an NCO program or not.   It is outside the NCO committee's direct charter but is something that getting a good NCO program in place can help down the road.

When this was reported at the NCO commitee there was a lot of talk about this.....but we are talking the baby steps approch with the long term goal being making CAP better.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 01:49:43 PM

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...

I understand where you're coming from and know that many folks feel the same way. But grade should not be used merely as an incentive or way to recognize members. Military-style grades should represent authority and responsibilities.

Many on this board have an issue with having both NCOs and officers because it's equivalent to having a "caste system" in a volunteer organization. Well, how come no one has an issue with having company, field and general grade officers? That could be considered a division of class as well. What about the fact that a Maj is superior to a Capt and a Capt to a 1st Lt? How come no one has an issue with that? I know why. Because at the end of the day, that Capt is Joe and the Lt is Bob and they all work together to make things happen regardless of grade. Wait? That's right! I forgot Billy, the MSgt, and Rick, the SSgt. They all work together as well. Hmmm...
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 30, 2015, 02:02:10 PM
To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 02:16:10 PM
You are correct....that internally we are getting the job done.....because Pat, Robert, Tom, Dick and Harry (and Sue, Cindy and Janet) are getting the job done.

My issue with CAP rank is mostly with the outside impressions and perceptions.

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

So....by making our purely interanl requirments for rank more like our AD brothers and sisters.....can make our credibiility with them better.
In no way are ever going to be accepted as "just like them" because they don't even think that other AD Officers are "just like them" (a flying officer vs a comm officer, vs an SF officer, vs a medical officer, etc. et al.)   
But we all agree that the system is a little broken.   And tinkering with it....may......may...make it better.

That is my goal with the NCO program.   Let's see what incrmental changes we can make.....see what results come from that and move on from there.

As I have said before.....there is a whole specutrum of things that we can do......everything from ditching the military model all together to mimicing/requiring full on military commission requirments for our officers.

Somewhere there is a happy medium.  Where we give ranks based on ability and responsiblity.....and we also keep in mind that we are all volunteer professionals with full time jobs/lives outside of CAP.

As for the Characterisation of the AD enlsited/officer system as a Caste System....in a lot of way it is.....in a lot of ways it is not.   
By Caste System we give the impression that there are hard road blocks that you cannot every pass based on things totally out of your control....that simply does not exist.  If you mean that the O's get differnt pay and better perks, different jobs and have a different set of standard then the E's....then yes in a way we are a caste system.   But so does just about every corporation.   The Board room types vs upper managment, vs middle managment vs line suprvisor vs the worker bees vs the janitors and mail room pukes.     

We are a volunteer operation.....we need to make sure the mission gets done......and we want to make sure the right person gets into the right job....and we should make sure that what they wear on their slevel or collar does not interfere with that.

Having said that....if we are going to use a military ranks system.....it only make sense that we try to match our parent system....or we should just do what the Commertive Air Force does and make everyone a Col and be done with it.

[/rant]
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 30, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...

It doesn't come solely from the ideas of a few people in an unofficial forum. It comes from 20+ years of hearing this issue discussed. It's not gotten any better with the introduction of the newest iteration of the NCO program. Take a look at the history of this discussion on this site alone. It goes back to at least 2007. That's 8 years of more than a few people making their displeasure known with the way the program is administered. You're right. Make commander and official title, give it, and only it, a pin. Everybody else is a member. Just a member....
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: THRAWN on April 30, 2015, 02:51:39 PM
My issue with CAP rank is mostly with the outside impressions and perceptions.

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".



And those perceptions drive missions to or away from us depending on the quality of the experience. If Sheriff Joe has a preconceived notion of what rank means, and he finds himself interacting with Lieutenant Colonel Tenthumbs on a mission, the next time CAP is called for anything EM related will be counted in years. I've seen it happen. Juristictions have refused to call CAP for even the most basic EM/DR/SAR missions because of some experience that some local official had with "some pretend colonel in the pretend Air Force..."
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 30, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

Ummm no.  Chief O'Brien was not the reason the Enterprise did not blow up.  That was Geordi LaForge.  When O'Brien was on the Enterprise in ST:TNG, he was a mere transporter chief.  When he was aboard the USS Rutledge, he was the junior & primary tactical officer.  He transferred to the Enterprise as a transport chief (although he was seen in the first episode Far Point as security).  It was not until the onset of DS9 when he was appointed the Chief of Operations and essentially became the chief engineer of the station. 

Also, his rank was never really established until the ending of ST:TNG.  Throughout ST:TNG, he was referred and wore various items.  At times he had a single Ensign pip, others he wore two pips as a full Lieutenant but was called crewmen, lieutenant, and chief.  It was not until the last few years the show finally settled on the title Chief, but he again kept wearing the 2 pips as a lieutenant.  It was not until DS9 they finally made it standard he wore a single black pip.  However, for one episode he wore a black chevron insignia and the Jem'Hadar called him a senior chief petty officer.

In no way are ever going to be accepted as "just like them" because they don't even think that other AD Officers are "just like them" (a flying officer vs a comm officer, vs an SF officer, vs a medical officer, etc. et al.)   

Sorry you got this wrong.  There is only medical and non-medical :)  One of my old TAC NCOs would ask:  Are you infantry or infantry support? 
   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 30, 2015, 03:57:22 PM
Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

Ummm no.  Chief O'Brien was not the reason the Enterprise did not blow up.  That was Geordi LaForge.  When O'Brien was on the Enterprise in ST:TNG, he was a mere transporter chief.  When he was aboard the USS Rutledge, he was the junior & primary tactical officer.  He transferred to the Enterprise as a transport chief (although he was seen in the first episode Far Point as security).  It was not until the onset of DS9 when he was appointed the Chief of Operations and essentially became the chief engineer of the station. 

Also, his rank was never really established until the ending of ST:TNG.  Throughout ST:TNG, he was referred and wore various items.  At times he had a single Ensign pip, others he wore two pips as a full Lieutenant but was called crewmen, lieutenant, and chief.  It was not until the last few years the show finally settled on the title Chief, but he again kept wearing the 2 pips as a lieutenant.  It was not until DS9 they finally made it standard he wore a single black pip.  However, for one episode he wore a black chevron insignia and the Jem'Hadar called him a senior chief petty officer.


So it sounds like Starfleet launched a new NCO program, and O'Brian switched tracks?  8)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: RiverAux on April 30, 2015, 03:59:52 PM
An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

The problem lies with them, not with us.  There are no situations that I can think of where a random AF member is going to count on a CAP Lt. Col. or 2nd Lt. to be able to do something equivalent to what a generic AF person of similar rank would be doing.  In all cases, that random person is going to be referred to whoever in the AF is actually supposed to be the liaison with CAP for that specific situation -- and that person is going to know who to ask to get something done that CAP is capable and authorized to do. 

Same goes with the county sheriff -- the worst that happens is that the sheriff asks the Lt. Col. to do something and that Lt. Col. refers him to the right CAP person to make that request.

I don't care if you restricted CAP officers to only being prior military officers, you would have the same exact "issues" with outside groups that don't know who we are or how we work.   
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: FW on April 30, 2015, 05:17:43 PM
To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

If the CAP NCO program expands as envisioned, I am sure our leadership will try to prevent our grade structure into a Caste system, however perception is a very strong motivator.  One of the major reasons the program was killed off in the 70's was due, in part, to the perception of "separateness".   Maybe we can prevent it from happening.  Maybe we have evolved enough to emulate life as in Star Trek; where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: LSThiker on April 30, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D

She was a civilian :)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 30, 2015, 05:42:24 PM
To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

If the CAP NCO program expands as envisioned, I am sure our leadership will try to prevent our grade structure into a Caste system, however perception is a very strong motivator.  One of the major reasons the program was killed off in the 70's was due, in part, to the perception of "separateness".   Maybe we can prevent it from happening.  Maybe we have evolved enough to emulate life as in Star Trek; where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D

By any chance, do you have any documentation about that issue in the 70's program?
Title: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 05:48:56 PM
An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

The problem lies with them, not with us. 

I respectfully disagree. I think the problem lies with us. We want to wear AF-style uniforms, AF-style grade insignias, and use the same titles, but don't want others to have the same expectations from us as they would have from an Air Force Capt, Maj or Lt Col. We can't expect to look and be treated like a Lt Col, but without the responsibilities or expectations that come with that grade. If our grades don't mean the same (or similar) thing, then they shouldn't look or be called the same.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: jeders on April 30, 2015, 06:32:56 PM
        -   Gen Vazquez and Mr. Salvador request success stories

Are they willing to listen to failure stories as well? If all they want to hear are success stories, then that's all that will be reported.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: JeffDG on April 30, 2015, 06:35:04 PM
Maybe we'll see something after this weekend.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 07:15:17 PM
        -   Gen Vazquez and Mr. Salvador request success stories

Are they willing to listen to failure stories as well? If all they want to hear are success stories, then that's all that will be reported.
By all means....if you got failure stories....send them up as well.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 08:13:17 PM
The problem with any success (or failure) story is that most would be based on the individual NCOs and not on the chevrons being worn. We have plenty of great military NCOs currently serving as CAP officers. We also have some great CAP NCOs. But for any story to be valid and applicable to the NCO program, it would have to be dependent on the NCO grade and status of the member and not just on the individual's training, skills, experience and leadership, since those qualities have nothing to do with the grade insignia being worn. Now, if we can show that many exceptional CAP NCOs wouldn't have joined CAP as officers or wouldn't have assumed the roles they have if it wasn't as NCOs, then maybe we have a story to tell.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on April 30, 2015, 08:21:03 PM
What we want to show....is that the mission will still get done....even if some of us are wearing stripes.

This is part of the Strategic Communications Plan....that is educating the members at large that NCOs are not a bad thing.

It is part of shifting the mind set of the rank and  file who don't know anything about the military....what NCO are capable of.

Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on April 30, 2015, 10:19:49 PM
To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

If the CAP NCO program expands as envisioned, I am sure our leadership will try to prevent our grade structure into a Caste system, however perception is a very strong motivator.  One of the major reasons the program was killed off in the 70's was due, in part, to the perception of "separateness".   Maybe we can prevent it from happening.  Maybe we have evolved enough to emulate life as in Star Trek; where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D

By any chance, do you have any documentation about that issue in the 70's program?

I have distinct memories of the issue from the era. Included in those memories - discussion, briefings and, yes, some of that was in writing. As with most transitory stuff, I tossed it (especially since I wasn't personally impacted).  I've said it before, though - there might be a Historian opportunity (or obligation) with all that.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: arajca on April 30, 2015, 10:21:07 PM
No one is arguing the mission won't get done with NCOs. The new NCO program is based on, IMHO, a false assumption - that NCO grades are essential to CAP.

All the nice words about the roles of NCOs in CAP as D&C experts, Keepers of heritage, Uniform Gurus, get wiped out when you bring in non-military NCOs. And, since that phase is on permanent hold, that makes whats left of the program an ego boast/stroke for current NCOs (and those who may qualify as prior military).

It also brings us back to the same question that has, as far I as can see, never really been answered - What is the benefit to CAP to create a NCO corps?
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: PHall on April 30, 2015, 11:12:48 PM
Solution looking for a problem... ::)
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: Storm Chaser on April 30, 2015, 11:17:28 PM
In all fairness, whether we agree with it or not, Pat has posted his vision of the NCO corps and how he and others think it would benefit the organization multiple times. The new program benefits current NCOs by allowing them to promote; nothing wrong with that. One of the main benefits to expanding the NCO corps beyond that would be the ability to attract prior military NCOs who otherwise would have no interest in joining CAP as officers.

As I understand Pat's vision (or at least part of it) of an expanded NCO corps (and this would probably be many years down the road), there would be a shift in CAP membership from officer-centric to NCO-centric. In other words, the majority of our members would be NCOs with fewer officers in command and key staff positions. That would go hand-in-hand with allowing non-prior military personnel to become CAP NCOs and increasing the requirements to become a CAP officer.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on May 01, 2015, 12:02:30 AM
No one is arguing the mission won't get done with NCOs. The new NCO program is based on, IMHO, a false assumption - that NCO grades are essential to CAP.
No one.....and I mean NO ONE....has ever said that.
In fact I have said the complete opposite of that several times.

If this does not pan out.....we go back to the old ways....no harm...no foul.   
Quote
It also brings us back to the same question that has, as far I as can see, never really been answered - What is the benefit to CAP to create a NCO corps?
Asked and answered many many many times.
Title: Re: NCO
Post by: lordmonar on May 01, 2015, 12:03:06 AM
Solution looking for a problem... ::)
so you have said...thanks for the input...I'll pass your feed back to the Chief.  8)