Started by oldrugged, April 13, 2007, 05:55:07 pm
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Sgt. Savage on April 13, 2007, 07:39:32 pmWe need to link rank to billet instead of PD. If we make it tougher to make rank, and only allow promotion through certain ranks unless billeted, we can get a better handle on this whole situation. It's nice to have prior service rank, and maybe that experience needs to be considered but... how difficult is it to have a General walking around while a 1st Lt is running the show.Just food for thought
QuoteSo does that mean we should abandon the grade system all together and just have "positions?" "Hi I'm Jim, Squadron Commander" or "Hi I'm Jim, Leadership Officer."
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 13, 2007, 10:18:32 pmSo you're saying that prior military Colonels shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a local squadron as a Colonel unless they take a "bust", which puts them in the same position that they're in now. What if they don't want to be a member of a "National HQ Squadron?You are basically saying what I posted above, that if they are doing something "worthy" of the grade, they shouldn't wear it in CAP. Which then goes to the position based grades...TAGS - jimmy
QuoteI don't want to be a Wing or National anything. I just want to be able to hold the same grade in CAP that I earned in the military.
QuoteWhy do the Wing and National jobs have to be the only ones tied to the 0-6 and above positions.
QuoteWhat I'm saying is have a CONSISTENT policy, no matter what it is... Don't make it accepting of military grade at SOME levels, and deny it at others. I can see how CAP might want to cut off accepting grades above those allowed at the top. For example, I can understand a policy that caps the CAP grades at 2-stars, because CAP isn't allowed to have Lieutentant Generals, Generals, and 5-star Generals of the CAP (??equivalent of General of the Army?). But why does there have to be a very limited number of Colonels, Bridagier Generals, and Major Generals??
QuoteFrankly put, EGO is the only reason that makes sense to me from what I've been told so far.
QuoteBy the way, does anyone know how to change my "position" on this site? For the record, I'm far from being a "recruit."
QuoteLike far too many other excuses in Corporate America, and believe me, the heirarchy of the CAP resembles Corporate America far more than Military America, it's basically, "We do it that way because we do it that way, and don't confuse us with facts."
Quote from: oldrugged on April 14, 2007, 12:36:07 pm Why do the Wing and National jobs have to be the only ones tied to the 0-6 and above positions.
Quote from: JC004 on April 14, 2007, 06:39:55 pmOrrrrr, we could kill rank names altogether and have more of a Coast Guard Auxiliary system.
Quote from: MIKE on April 14, 2007, 07:32:18 pmQuote from: JC004 on April 14, 2007, 06:39:55 pmOrrrrr, we could kill rank names altogether and have more of a Coast Guard Auxiliary system. I don't think that solves the problem. I happen to be a Flotilla Staff Officer (FSO)... butter bar. At the end of the year if I don't get appointed again I don't loose my bars, I can keep wearing 'em as long as I wear the Past Officer Device on my pocket flap. Same deal for someone who has held a much higher office in the past.
Quote from: oldrugged on April 14, 2007, 12:36:07 pmI just want to be able to hold the same grade in CAP that I earned in the military.
Quote from: msmjr2003 on April 14, 2007, 10:08:56 pmPerhaps, if we could *ahem* set egos aside, we should consult with Lt Col George Harrison, CAP.Aside from having served as the National Staff College Provost in (at least) 2005, he goes by another moniker; and he has NO problem being a CAP Lt Col, so if he has no problem with it, nobody else should.Oh....about that "other" moniker of CAP Lt Col Harrison's: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5726
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 23 queries.