Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 18, 2019, 10:29:55 AM
Home Help Login Register

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 on: Yesterday at 09:06:06 PM 
Started by Eagle11 - Last post by JeffDG
I can run a number for my wing, but not beyond that.

Msgt: 1
SSgt: 4
SM:  75
2nd Lt: 112
1st Lt: 87
Capt: 80
Maj: 81
Lt Col:  87
Col:  3

Interesting that from 1st Lt -> Lt Col is very close to the same count.

 on: Yesterday at 08:38:40 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by Vegas1972
AAFES sells the "Extra Large" uniforms at the Military Clothing Sales. You want them to stop too?

To CAP members?  Yes.

And since the average member has no access to AAFES, largely (heh, see what I did there?) irrelevant.

For better or worse, VG is still the primary source for clothing for most members.  There's no reason
they should be selling size 60 waist blues pants. There's literally no reason for those to even exist.

While I agree that it's unlikely...what about cadets?   Possible, correct?

 on: Yesterday at 08:29:48 PM 
Started by AckAck - Last post by MacGruff
To be "on staff" means that someone in your squadron / group / wing had to put you into a Duty Assignment in eServices and the commander of that unit had to approve it. Check you member record to see if it was done for (to?) you. You need to have completed Level 1 for that to be possible, and SHOULD be enrolled in the appropriate Specialty Track for the duty assignment, but it's mostly an administrative thing of pressing a few mouse buttons.

 on: Yesterday at 08:26:37 PM 
Started by Eagle11 - Last post by MacGruff
I remember that statistic. It was published when the change in the regulation was made that was intended - among other things - to slow down the progression of so many folks into higher grades. Although it's kinda soon, I wonder if today's numbers are much different?

Part of me thinks that it's not as many people rushed to get their Majors or Lt. Colonels before the Grandfathering expired last August and they would not have fallen off the rolls yet. Maybe a slight flattening of "curve" would be seen with less Captains since those numbers?

Anyway, that's all idle speculation...    >:D

 on: Yesterday at 07:45:13 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by Eclipse
I wonder if this is Tru-Spec making them exclusively for VG. 

 on: Yesterday at 07:40:38 PM 
Started by AckAck - Last post by Eclipse
Staff would mean that you hold a duty assignment at that respective unit.

Yep - should be reflected in eServices as an assignment of record.  Echelon is irrelevant to the requirement unless specified in the pamphlet.

(Ex: ES Master requires assignment at Wing or higher).

 on: Yesterday at 07:11:54 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by TheSkyHornet
They're TRU-SPEC ABUs.

Has this changed in the last 6 months or so?

The last ones I saw from VG were no-name knock-offs from Rhodesia with color issues.

No mil-spec tags, just "made in".

I also don't see the ABU pattern in the Tru-Spec inventory.

Website specifically indicates "TRU-SPEC"

Now, they may entirely be knock-off (i.e., lies). No idea. As you said, TRU-SPEC doesn't sell ABUs on their website.

Just to be technical, TRU-SPEC is a clothing brand, not an actual specification to military standard or defense supply. I'm not sure the level of quality control that verifies that they're actually designing and producing to mil-spec versus "close enough," despite what they market themselves as.

 on: Yesterday at 07:07:54 PM 
Started by AckAck - Last post by TheSkyHornet
Staff would mean that you hold a duty assignment at that respective unit.

Not everyone immediately has a duty assignment upon joining. If you serve as a member of the "Logistics," that would mean the Logistics Officer and the roles that report to the Logistics Officer at that echelon.

To serve on "staff" is respective to the unit being referred to. If you just need to be assigned as staff, you are the staff of the Commander at the echelon of assignment; it could technically be at any echelon, wherever you are assigned.

CAPR 20-1, Section D kind of touches on this with the explanation of Commanders having the authority to appoint staffs. You may have to read between the lines on it, since there isn't a definition of what "Staff" in itself actually means, but it's implied as a person working for their Commander at that respective headquarters level.

 on: Yesterday at 06:57:04 PM 
Started by hfriday - Last post by arajca
Fair enough, from the official perspective. But I know there's a lot of aggregated experience here, so, while CAPTalk isn't the official next step, it's usually where I go next once stymied in my own research. I try not to climb the chain of command for anything I can just find out through colleagues.

The information that the UCC is undergoing some technological changeover and that SLS might be similarly "upgrading" right now, for example, is worth considering before I hassle people up at wing level.

Thanks to all for their contributions here.


Asking the wing level folks is appropriate as they may have been made aware of a pending change affecting the various courses that has not made it down to general membership. Also, it may spur them to ask and put the word out.

It's also helpful to briefly say what you've checked already as it will nip some of the nastier comments in the bud.

 on: Yesterday at 06:53:50 PM 
Started by AckAck - Last post by AckAck
I can't seem to find definitive language on this, but what counts as "Command or Staff Assignment" for SM PD?  Being in command is clear - but what counts as "Staff"? Would being a squadron's PAO count?  Or does it need to be at a Group / Wing level?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 20 queries.