Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2019, 08:14:26 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NCO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: NCO  (Read 113441 times)
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 937
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #100 on: March 13, 2015, 02:49:22 PM »


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.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 02:52:38 PM by Mitchell 1969 » Report to moderator   Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
The14th
Forum Regular

Posts: 102
Unit: SWR-TX-403

American Battle Museum
« Reply #101 on: March 13, 2015, 04:27:03 PM »

I think someone just really liked those new designed chevrons and wanted to push them out quickly. ;D
Report to moderator   Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,622

« Reply #102 on: March 13, 2015, 04:49:05 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...
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #103 on: March 13, 2015, 05:02:03 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
The14th
Forum Regular

Posts: 102
Unit: SWR-TX-403

American Battle Museum
« Reply #104 on: March 13, 2015, 05:43:41 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!
Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,051

« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2015, 06:04:12 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."
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2015, 06:17:25 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2015, 06:19:15 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.   
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,051

« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2015, 08:05:36 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?
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2015, 08:58:10 PM »

Officers doing officer work and enlisted doing enlisted work?   It would fix that for one.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
shuman14
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,031
Unit: NHQ-996

« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2015, 09:23:11 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Joseph J. Clune
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police

USMCR: 1990 - 1992                           USAR: 1993 -1998, 2000 - Present     CAP (National Patron) 2013 - Present
INARNG: 1992 - 1993, 1998 - 2000       USCGAux: 2004 - Present
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,642
Unit: Classified

« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2015, 11:28:40 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,622

« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2015, 11:30:59 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...
Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,390

« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2015, 12:50:33 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 944

« Reply #114 on: March 14, 2015, 01:00:20 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2015, 01:23:05 AM »


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
sarmed1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 944

« Reply #116 on: March 14, 2015, 01:43:57 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Mark Kleibscheidel
TSgt USAFR
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,189

« Reply #117 on: March 14, 2015, 02:40:10 AM »

^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.
Report to moderator   Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,642
Unit: Classified

« Reply #118 on: March 14, 2015, 03:15:28 AM »


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.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 03:22:09 AM by abdsp51 » Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,713

« Reply #119 on: March 14, 2015, 03:32:17 AM »


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).


Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NCO
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 27 queries.