Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2019, 09:25:07 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: "...up to Lt. Col....." Insulting and discriminatory
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: "...up to Lt. Col....." Insulting and discriminatory  (Read 17840 times)
bosshawk
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,585

« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2007, 12:52:36 AM »

Possible answer to acarlson's question.  Very unlikely that an Army Major would receive a discharge of any kind: but possible.  Usually, an officer of that rank would either transfer to the Guard or Reserve or go into the inactive reserve.  There are lots of things that would go into those possibilities.

If the Major transferred to the Air Force(done on occasion, but not frequently), there is every reason to assume that the transfer would be at the grade of Major.  I don't know the regs, but it might be that an outright discharge(honorable assumed)might or might not result in the awarding of Major to the person.

Confused: try dealing with Army or Air Force regs on the subject.

The whole point of this thread is that one officer feels slighted because he didn't get his active duty rank in CAP.  Neither did I , but I don't let that stop me from doing my very best for CAP.  I often jokingly say that I took a one rank demotion to join CAP.  Some of you are aware that rank doesn't play much of a role in my life in CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777
jimmydeanno
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,155
Unit: ǝnƃoɹ

« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2007, 01:06:52 AM »

I just want to be able to hold the same grade in CAP that I earned in the military.

Ok ... here's real fuel for you flammers...

If I were in the Army... and earned Maj... honorably discharged and
then joined the Air Force ...   would I be able to be a Maj in the Air Force because I was a Maj in the Army?

And if you were in the ANG and went into active duty, you might get demoted...so what's your point.  The military is the military, all branches go off the same pay scale.  CAP is not the military, while your qualifications may be of some assistance to the CAP, it really doesn't give you any experience dealing with or commanding volunteers. 

If you demand someone does something in the military they don't really want to do, they do it.  If you demand someone does something in CAP they don't want to do, they leave.  Why can't "you" be happy about joining CAP and try to work your way through CAP instead of trying to circumvent the program?  Perhaps if people stopped thinking they were "better" than it we would have a better promotion system...
Report to moderator   Logged
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2007, 01:57:14 AM »

Possible answer to acarlson's question.  Very unlikely that an Army Major would receive a discharge of any kind: but possible.  Usually, an officer of that rank would either transfer to the Guard or Reserve or go into the inactive reserve.  There are lots of things that would go into those possibilities.

If the Major transferred to the Air Force(done on occasion, but not frequently), there is every reason to assume that the transfer would be at the grade of Major.  I don't know the regs, but it might be that an outright discharge(honorable assumed)might or might not result in the awarding of Major to the person.

Confused: try dealing with Army or Air Force regs on the subject.

The whole point of this thread is that one officer feels slighted because he didn't get his active duty rank in CAP.  Neither did I , but I don't let that stop me from doing my very best for CAP.  I often jokingly say that I took a one rank demotion to join CAP.  Some of you are aware that rank doesn't play much of a role in my life in CAP.
Grade doesn't necessarily transfer directly when inter-service transfering. If your MOS/AFSC is applicable so that you are capable of assuming the kinds of positions & leadership levels associated with your grade, and most importantly if there is an open slot you can work your name into... then for the most part they try to retain your grade & date of rank (year group). there's wierd stuff too. You can come over from Army WO pilot to the CG & direct commission to O-2 (which is still a paycut), but if you stay in the Army & got to OCS then they just make you a 2Lt, but then there's a system to resign your commission & convert it to varrious WO grades... you just thought CAP was complicated.

I don't see it as that big a deal. It really doesn't haev anything to do with the grade itself to me. We recognize military grade in general on the basis of the generalized military skill & experience we need in CAP as much as we need pilots. I think it would be a good idea to recognize Col-Gen by letting them keep their grade, and the main reason I say that is they tend (especially in the upper end of that spectrum) to retain influence at verious points on the DoD & state sides of the house that can be utilized to our advantage if we don't run them off from the start.
Report to moderator   Logged
oldrugged
Recruit

Posts: 9

« Reply #43 on: April 15, 2007, 12:44:26 PM »

Don't put words in my mouth.  I don't care one whit how many 5-star generals there are in CAP.  My point is that IF IF IF IF IF IF CAP wants to cut it off at some point, it might be reasonable to cut of CAP grades at the point that CAP is allowed to have grade.  So far as I'm personally concerned, give it all to them if they've earned it.  I also have no argument with those who say, "NO MILITARY RANK CREDIT!"  Fine with me, although I think those who consider CAP a totally different organization with no military comparisons aren't living on this planet.  I agree fully that the CAP missions and military missions are different...somewhat....but I can also tell you that many jobs in the CAP aren't all that different.....mine, for example, except I can do far far far less in CAP than I can in any military branch I've ever belonged to.  I just attended the TX Wing Conference, and all the way up the line, including a discussion with the 2-star Pineda confirmed that there is really NO ROLE in CAP for any healthcare, especially physicians, because of their paranoid fear of liability.  So who pulls the folks out of the planes, the medically-trained ground crew?  If they're EMTs, fine.  But what exactly are they allowed to do.  Liability is liability.  CAP is on lost ground here with this one.  Point of all this is....training is training.  CAP doesn't have any ability to allow the best trained to do anything medically, and their policies are far far far far from consistent, not only with the ranking structure, but many others as well.   
Report to moderator   Logged
oldrugged
Recruit

Posts: 9

« Reply #44 on: April 15, 2007, 12:50:25 PM »

I'm pretty sick of being accused of trying to circumvent the program.  It's the CAP that makes the policies of bringing in people at their military rank, not my policies.  But, their policy is not consistent.  That's my beef.  There is absolutely no logical reason to cut it off at 0-5.  I have no argument with those who say eliminate the program and bring everyone in at E-1 or O-1 and make them work their way up.  IF THOSE WHO ARE CRITICAL HAD READ MY ORIGINAL POSTING, they'd know what I actually said, instead of making unwarranted accusations regarding my motives.  My motive is twofold....but only one applies here....that is to make CAP have a consistent policy regarding their grading system for seniors.  Before you post a reply, at least do me and others the courtesy of knowing what I said in the first place.....go back and read the entire thing!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Monty
Seasoned Member

Posts: 276

« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2007, 01:56:51 PM »

I'm pretty sick of being accused of trying to circumvent the program.  It's the CAP that makes the policies of bringing in people at their military rank, not my policies.  But, their policy is not consistent.  That's my beef.  There is absolutely no logical reason to cut it off at 0-5.  I have no argument with those who say eliminate the program and bring everyone in at E-1 or O-1 and make them work their way up.  IF THOSE WHO ARE CRITICAL HAD READ MY ORIGINAL POSTING, they'd know what I actually said, instead of making unwarranted accusations regarding my motives.  My motive is twofold....but only one applies here....that is to make CAP have a consistent policy regarding their grading system for seniors.  Before you post a reply, at least do me and others the courtesy of knowing what I said in the first place.....go back and read the entire thing!!

Not too sure to whom you are speaking, but you'll likely figure out the "quote" feature when using this board, in time.  :)

With respect to my post (here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1924.msg31893#msg31893), I really think it bears repeating; perhaps this is the gentleman with whom you might enjoy speaking about your suggestion(s).  Aside from being very approachable, he has a very interesting approach to the same situation you note.  (I won't give his words away...they're his and best heard from his mouth.)

:)
Report to moderator   Logged
brasda91
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 563
Unit: GLR-KY-011

Squadron website
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2007, 02:41:29 PM »

I hadn't really given any thought to this subject.  But, I don't think any Senior member should be automatically promoted in CAP according to his/her active/reserve/ng rank or because of their civilian profession.  I've seen this in my squadron.  You have a new senior member join and get automatic promotion to 1Lt. because they're a nurse.  But the other seniors who joined as a SM are a 2Lt. and have a good working knowledge of CAP are having to explain CAP to the 1Lt.   The current rank structure is designed on your experience and knowledge of CAP, and I agree that's the way it should be.  I think we all agree that the only reason Wing Commanders are automatically promoted up to Col. is to have a senior ranking senior member in charge of the Wing.

I do agree of doing away of the rank all together, as previously suggested, and simply use the title of your job, all the way up the chain-of-command.
Report to moderator   Logged
Wade Dillworth, Maj.
Paducah Composite Squadron
www.kywgcap.org/ky011
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2007, 04:19:31 PM »

I do agree of doing away of the rank all together, as previously suggested, and simply use the title of your job, all the way up the chain-of-command.

NO!  Rank was part of the original concept.  Leave it alone.  If you want to change rank, then change the PRO DEV.  Make it more difficult to become a LTCOL.  Make it that only CAPT's can be SQD CMDRS, after they complete CAP SPECIFIC Corespondence courses. 

Perhaps instead of automatic promotions, maybe they will be more difficult.  I am all for increasing the time in grade to make CAPT and MAJOR.   
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
MattPHS2002
Member

Posts: 80

« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2007, 06:00:39 PM »

Quote
NO!  Rank was part of the original concept.  Leave it alone.  If you want to change rank, then change the PRO DEV.  Make it more difficult to become a LTCOL.  Make it that only CAPT's can be SQD CMDRS, after they complete CAP SPECIFIC Correspondence courses.    

As it stands we only have ECI-13 that is required now and we have enough trouble, as evidenced by other threads in getting folks to take them, I hardly see people signing up for extra hassle that can be AFIDL, more people get what they applied for than don't but its only the times that the system breaks down that we hear about....
Report to moderator   Logged
1Lt Matt Gamret

NER-PA-002 Drug Demand Reduction Officer
acarlson
Member

Posts: 85

CAP, Doylestown Composite Squadron 907, Doylestown PA
« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2007, 06:29:18 PM »


As it stands we only have ECI-13 that is required now and we have enough trouble, as evidenced by other threads in getting folks to take them... 

Matt,  I'm going to disagree with you here...  my experience is that we don't have trouble getting our members to take them.... our folks are at the ready and very willing to tackle the courses...
 our trouble lies with the red tape and lost paperwork at the middlemen, ie., Wing...  AFIADL and the TCO who administers the tests get the job done quickly, when, and I repeat *when* they receive the paperwork... 

in the last 12 months, I've enrolled at least 23 members in AFIADL courses... most of them the 13... others include ES, Safety, PAO, and Mission Scanner... (that includes 3 of my own courses) ...our bottleneck has always been at our Wing HQ ...  (let us lay the responsibliity where it belongs)... which causes frustrated members, who then give up on trying to get the course and/or test... and as a result, frustrated in further progressing in PD...

<sidenote:  after alot of followup, I have had success either circumventing the bottleneck, or simply getting a duplicate course or test sent out again, so that the member can and has successfully completed it.>

but alas, not the topic of this thread... so BUMP!
Report to moderator   Logged
Annette Carlson, 1Lt CAP
PDO, PAO, Pers, & Historian
Doylestown Composite Squadron 907
Doylestown PA
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,390

« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2007, 06:40:55 PM »

I'll chime in here about AFIADL. I've had very good success in getting folks enrolled (typically 2 weeks to received their materials after submitting the enrollment) and receiving tests (again about two weeks - including the pit stop at wing). You really can't do much better than that.

Oldrugged, CAP does have a consistant policy for military promotions - equal grade up to LT Col, anyone over that only gets Lt Col. It is applied equally throughout CAP without regard to which branch of the military the member comes from.

One major issue you're overlooking is those CAP members who are Col or higher have a great deal of knowledge about Civil Air Patrol. Military personnel, with a few exceptions, do not. Also, the grades of Col and higher indicate someone has served as a corporate officer. That is uniform and consistant throughout CAP. If I have a serious policy type question, I can go to almost any Col and get a good answer. I can do this because of the requirements to attain the grade of Col. If you open it up to military officers, the indicator of knowledge about CAP goes away.

Besides, all the military officers I know of in CAP who were O-6 of higher don't have a problem with being "demoted" to O-5. They understand the reasons behind it and accept them as valid. Just like they understand the requirements and reasons behind most military grade levels.
Report to moderator   Logged
MattPHS2002
Member

Posts: 80

« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2007, 07:04:12 PM »


As it stands we only have ECI-13 that is required now and we have enough trouble, as evidenced by other threads in getting folks to take them... 

Matt,  I'm going to disagree with you here...  my experience is that we don't have trouble getting our members to take them.... our folks are at the ready and very willing to tackle the courses...
 our trouble lies with the red tape and lost paperwork at the middlemen, ie., Wing...  AFIADL and the TCO who administers the tests get the job done quickly, when, and I repeat *when* they receive the paperwork... 

in the last 12 months, I've enrolled at least 23 members in AFIADL courses... most of them the 13... others include ES, Safety, PAO, and Mission Scanner... (that includes 3 of my own courses) ...our bottleneck has always been at our Wing HQ ...  (let us lay the responsibliity where it belongs)... which causes frustrated members, who then give up on trying to get the course and/or test... and as a result, frustrated in further progressing in PD...

<sidenote:  after alot of followup, I have had success either circumventing the bottleneck, or simply getting a duplicate course or test sent out again, so that the member can and has successfully completed it.>

but alas, not the topic of this thread... so BUMP!

I stand corrected. Never said that it did not improve in that time, the whole web based this is nice.... very nice

Good old PAWG, I did get the books quickly and I'm going to our Group Admin (she used to be my Sq. Admin as well) so I know I should get my test this time, unless it hits aformentioned bottleneck
Report to moderator   Logged
1Lt Matt Gamret

NER-PA-002 Drug Demand Reduction Officer
ColonelJack
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,373
Unit: SER-GA-153

« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2007, 07:46:57 PM »

I do agree of doing away of the rank all together, as previously suggested, and simply use the title of your job, all the way up the chain-of-command.

Ummmmm ... well, okay.  Let's do away with yours, then, and that of everyone else who thinks we shouldn't have rank.   ;D  Me, I earned mine, and I would prefer to keep it.  (Okay, being retired, I'm not in any danger of losing it, but you know what I mean.)

Jack
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., Civil Air Patrol
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
fyrfitrmedic
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 555

« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2007, 08:06:11 PM »

 Speaking as one of the end-user in question, 1LT Carlson has done a great job IMHO of clearing up the apparent bottleneck that existed previously.

 I'm personally aware of a number of AFIADL horror stories from the past resulting from said bottlenecks and experienced a pretty significant one myself a number of years ago.
Report to moderator   Logged
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2007, 08:57:08 PM »

We've had little trouble with AFIADL. If your personnel officer doesn't have it down pat by now, or if you aren't willing to do your homework & guide them thru the process, then you don't deserve to take it. That's part of what's being tested IMO.

As far as officer grade coming over... we are a military based program with a deficiency of military training, skill, and experience. That means they bring a critical skill to our organization that's at least as important as when a CFI joins, possibly more.

It's also disrespectful to the hand that feeds us!!!! You understand w/o the respect & appreciation of the real mil for us, they will ask for less money to fund us, and we are dead in the water. That should be a key part of the thinking on this.

For people that aren't getting this... CAP is a military based organization that is supposed to function just like the military. I understand there are difs, particularly the legality that you are not a member of the armed services, but in every other sense it is supposed to be just like you are in the military. If your unit isn't functioning like that, then that's something to work on, and that's where we need the assistance of prior-service personnel, that's why CAP recognizes their grade.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,983

« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2007, 10:14:11 PM »

Sorry, I've seen no evidence that former military officers of any grade are any better at fixing the problems in CAP than non-prior service and in some cases make things worse.  This isn't unique to former military as civilians that come in expecting a gung ho military organization are just as likely to mess things up. 

I don't see any great advantage in letting in a few Col. and General grade people ikeep their rank as a way to improve the organization overall.  Would it kill the organization?  Probably not, but it would cause some issues.  We already have enough problems with prior service people thinking their CAP rank is more real than that earned by non-prior service.  No need to make it worse. 
Report to moderator   Logged
CAPOfficer
Member

Posts: 70

« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2007, 06:09:28 AM »

Grade has always been an important part of our organization and in my opinion always will be.  For those that feel grade has no place in our organization or it should be thrown aside, simply resign your grade and become a senior member. 

No one is “forced” to wear grade or to be promoted; if you sincerely do not wish to be a CAP officer, you don’t have to.  I assure you, the rest of us will not be offended by your decision to toss it aside.

Those of us, who regard our grade in CAP as meaningful, we will continue to wear it.

As far as advancing members to the grade of colonel and above by virtue of previously holding that grade in the active duty, guard, reserve or any other entity, forget it.  CAP has a long standing tradition of reserving those grades for individuals serving in corporate officer positions.  For those who want to be a colonel or possibly even a general, the method is clear, all you have to do is become a corporate officer at the correct level in the organization to which matches the grade you wish to be.

There are thousands of members who will never receive the grade of colonel in CAP let alone anything higher.  Some of these members have served for decades knowing full well this realization but never complain.  At the last National Board, a couple of members who had flown on anti-submarine patrols during World War II were advanced to the grade of colonel.  Even this was a major exception to the rule.

An item which everyone took note of at the last National Board was the request and approval of extensions to the terms of office for wing & region commanders.  This request was submitted because of the problems in filling these positions with qualified individuals; positions which lead to the advancement in grade, that of colonel.  Yes, it also leads to an increased responsibility and a firm commitment of time as well (normally four years, unless you can’t find a qualified individual to replace you, then you may be kept on even longer).

The bottom-line, if you want to be a colonel or more, by all means step up to the plate and become a wing or region commander for four or more years.  Afterwards, if you still feel that anyone (or everyone) should be a colonel (or more), you can utilize you new position on the National Board to make that recommendation; until then, the line begins at being a CAP officer first.
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,502
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2007, 06:28:19 AM »

I do agree of doing away of the rank all together, as previously suggested, and simply use the title of your job, all the way up the chain-of-command.

Ummmmm ... well, okay.  Let's do away with yours, then, and that of everyone else who thinks we shouldn't have rank.   ;D  Me, I earned mine, and I would prefer to keep it.  (Okay, being retired, I'm not in any danger of losing it, but you know what I mean.)

Jack


Nah, JACK, we'll just refer to you as " THE ADMIRAL"   :D


As for the Military - CAP rank issue:  Higher Rank means more responsibility.
True we have Senior Officers in units with subordinate ranking Commanders, but for the most part those Senior Officers got there. -- Even the Prior Service types I know still work hard to complete the CAP PD Levels. -- they dont just get the advanced promotion and sit still.

If you are willing to complete the PD levels AND serve CAP at a higher office - Wing  Region or National then yes, pin on the Eagles. But if not then wear the Oak Leaves. Most prior service types accept this. And for the most part arent holding high offices within the organization. - My hat is off to those folks that do. Along with my thanks.

Im in the CG AUX, I hold a staff position and wear the insignia, but I dont refer to myself as a CG j.g.   
I care more about advancing in the PD and doing a good job as a Personnel Officer then I do about what is on my shoulder.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2007, 06:41:09 AM by SAR-EMT1 » Report to moderator   Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2007, 08:08:32 AM »

Sorry, I've seen no evidence that former military officers of any grade are any better at fixing the problems in CAP than non-prior service and in some cases make things worse.  This isn't unique to former military as civilians that come in expecting a gung ho military organization are just as likely to mess things up. 

I don't see any great advantage in letting in a few Col. and General grade people ikeep their rank as a way to improve the organization overall.  Would it kill the organization?  Probably not, but it would cause some issues.  We already have enough problems with prior service people thinking their CAP rank is more real than that earned by non-prior service.  No need to make it worse. 
I really don't know why you have such issues with prior service officers. I don't know if you've had a bad personal experience or what, but deal with it & move on.

We are ALWAYS going to recognize prior service grade if for no other reason than the political paying amage to the hand that feeds us.

We SHOULD do this for a couple other reasons, like not insulting them for one by telling them they are coming into a military based organization formally affiliated with and sponsored by the Air Force but their military career isn't important? That'd cause them to walk in a heartbeat. They've sacrificed their adult lives for BS pay & BS treatment at the hands of their govt. The luckiest of them gets screwed over worse in their first few years than you ever will in your entire CAP career, and what they get to show for it that other retirees don't is their grade & chest full of medals. So No, we're not going to deny them that & in turn make them feel unwelcome.

From a more practical purpose though, we need them here explicitly to militarize the program. We want it to function like the military & we want them to help make it that way. So we recognize their experience the same as we do pilots.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2007, 03:02:56 PM »

Sorry, I've seen no evidence that former military officers of any grade are any better at fixing the problems in CAP than non-prior service and in some cases make things worse.  This isn't unique to former military as civilians that come in expecting a gung ho military organization are just as likely to mess things up. 

I don't see any great advantage in letting in a few Col. and General grade people ikeep their rank as a way to improve the organization overall.  Would it kill the organization?  Probably not, but it would cause some issues.  We already have enough problems with prior service people thinking their CAP rank is more real than that earned by non-prior service.  No need to make it worse. 


River:

I'm kind of surprised at your comment.

I have run into many CAP members who have not had prior service experience, or whose experience was in the lower enlisted grades.  They have a very steep learning curve to understand how to staff issues, how to write an operations order, the relationship between commanders and their staffs,  and the relationships of staff officers among themselves.  Having former officers in the mix, who have done the officer thing for real, clearly improves the overall performance of CAP and its members.

Not to even touch on the fact that cadets learn how things should be done in the military from someone who actually did it, rather than someone who read the same textbook they did, and who never served as an active-duty officer.

And military guys know a lot more about CAP than you might think.  The problem is, they know what CAP is supposed to be doing, and are surprised at the sometimes-inadequate capability that some CAP members and units exhibit.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: "...up to Lt. Col....." Insulting and discriminatory
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me