The significance of 2Lt in CAP

[OldSalt]

Gentlemen - I'm not arguing, I'm trying to educate my peers as tactfully as possible. I'm just pointing out that whether we like it or not, our manuals and the way they are written are what we need to stick to - not our own opinions and "Now let me tell you how it really works" good 'ole boy stuff.

SarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.

Whether the regs are old and outdated doesn't mean they are not authoritative. Until actually changed, they are the CAP law. Now, I do agree that in law there is the letter of the law - which is what I've been quoting, and then there is the practical application based upon the intent of the law. In terms of the practical application of our CAP laws, there is virtually no use for the current NCO or FO grades "as is" and they are used basically as alternatives to the main CAP officer grades.

The overall point is that if we don't want to use them as designed in the regs, or we don't have an actual need for them in our overall grade structure practically speaking, then let's change the regs accordingly and get rid of them. As others have rightly pointed out, CAP grades are CAP grades, nothing more, nothing less.

If we want to have 2d Lt as our lowest possible rank and this rank is to be designated the newbie rank, then let's make it so on paper so "we're all on the same page". If we want to keep the NCO and FO grades on the books, then let's use them more effectively and not as mere tokens - and make 2d Lt mean what it really is intended to mean, that being the lowest regular officer grade above newbie SMWOG.

[Eclipse]

SarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.

Actually, I'd say its just about the right timber in this case.  You are showing your experience level in the way you are trying to make assertions that have no basis in fact or practical application.  The reg allows for the wear of stripes, that's it - they aren't "CAP NCO's" if for no other reason than the entire concept of the NCO is irrelevant in CAP.  Say what you want about CAP officer grade, but at least there is a training program in place to build them, flawed that it may be.

You're also making two separate arguments to support the same flawed understanding.

As of today, there is no NCO program in CAP, if you thing there should be, that's a different discussion and SEARCH is your friend.

[SarDragon]

Tick, tick, tick...

[FW]

If we want to have 2d Lt as our lowest possible rank and this rank is to be designated the newbie rank, then let's make it so on paper so "we're all on the same page". If we want to keep the NCO and FO grades on the books, then let's use them more effectively and not as mere tokens - and make 2d Lt mean what it really is intended to mean, that being the lowest regular officer grade above newbie SMWOG.

At this point in time, we have NCO grades as, IMO, a courtesy.  FO grades are for those senior members under 21.  FO grades are "parallel" grades to 2nd LT, 1st LT and CAPT as the Air Force prohibits those under 21 from having officer grades. Personally, I have no idea why I'm even having this conversation.  Oh, yeah... I'm waiting for dinner and have nothing better to do.

[ßτε]

You seem to be missing the context of the regulations. Yes, NCO grades and FO grades are authorized and used. But they are used for very specific groups, and not the membership in general. The vast majority of new senior members are ineligible for either of these.

Most new senior members are 21 or over. Therefore they are ineligible for FO grades.

Most new senior members were/are not NCOs in the military. Therefore, they are ineligible for CAP NCO grades.

That leaves 2^d Lt as the lowest grade that the vast majority are eligible for.

As you put it, the "letter of the law" is that a 21 year old new member without prior military NCO experience cannot be a CAP NCO nor a FO. So the lowest starting grade would have to be 2^d Lt . That is not just "practical application based on the intent of the law." It is exactly what the regulations specify.

The only way to change this is to change the eligibility rules for FO grades and/or NCO grades.

Both the FO grades and NCO grades currently are fulfilling their purposes. Senior members who are ineligible for 2^d Lt or higher due to the fact that they are not yet 21 are promoted to FO, TFO, or SFO as needed. Former and current military NCOs are promoted to appropriate CAP NCO grades as appropriate, if they so choose. There is no need to eliminate these options.

[OldSalt]

Actually, I'd say its just about the right timber in this case.  You are showing your experience level in the way you are trying to make assertions that have no basis in fact or practical application.

Ok, once more for "the old extremely experienced guys" - CAP's manuals and regs are indeed fact and not my opinion. My "assertions" are based on the regs and therefore they are based in fact.

The reg allows for the wear of stripes, that's it - they aren't "CAP NCO's" if for no other reason than the entire concept of the NCO is irrelevant in CAP.

I'd say your assertion here isn't based in fact. CAP NCO grades are official CAP grades according to the regs - not just window dressing.

Say what you want about CAP officer grade, but at least there is a training program in place to build them, flawed that it may be.

That I can agree with you on. :clap:

You're also making two separate arguments to support the same flawed understanding.
As of today, there is no NCO program in CAP, if you thing there should be, that's a different discussion and SEARCH is your friend.

Again, I agree with you here except I never said there was a "CAP NCO program" - all I said was the regs say that there are authorized CAP NCO grades. That's it.

There really is no conflict here - The whole conversation started with what is the significance of the CAP 2d Lt rank. It then degenerated like all the rest of the conversations on here into a he said / she said banter.

Nothing we say on here will really affect CAP in anyway so what's really the use except to give us some extra typing practice and to practice our grammar and spelling.

[OldSalt]

Yes, NCO grades and FO grades are authorized and used.

Thank you.

But they are used for very specific groups, and not the membership in general. The vast majority of new senior members are ineligible for either of these

Most new senior members are 21 or over. Therefore they are ineligible for FO grades.

Most new senior members were/are not NCOs in the military. Therefore, they are ineligible for CAP NCO grades.

That leaves 2^d Lt as the lowest grade that the vast majority are eligible for.

Agreed

As you put it, the "letter of the law" is that a 21 year old new member without prior military NCO experience cannot be a CAP NCO nor a FO. So the lowest starting grade would have to be 2^d Lt . That is not just "practical application based on the intent of the law." It is exactly what the regulations specify.

As I put it? I never said this.

The only way to change this is to change the eligibility rules for FO grades and/or NCO grades.

That's what we have been talking about.

Both the FO grades and NCO grades currently are fulfilling their purposes. Senior members who are ineligible for 2^d Lt or higher due to the fact that they are not yet 21 are promoted to FO, TFO, or SFO as needed. Former and current military NCOs are promoted to appropriate CAP NCO grades as appropriate, if they so choose.

Agreed

There is no need to eliminate these options.

That's debateable.

[SarDragon]

SarDragon - again, can we please leave out the "Your not experienced enough - so don't bother me kid" routine. You have no idea who I am, or my experience level with CAP. It's getting old. Let's just stick to the facts, ok.

Then how about giving us a little info about yourself?

My sig has enough basic info about me to deduce the following:
Joined CAP some time before 1980
Have been in CAP at least 8 years
I'm at least 37 years old

I'm sure further details about me would bore you. Try entertaining us with some of yours.

Your anonymity is working against you.

[OldSalt]

This is America, why can't we all just be inclusive here?

Would my ideas really be taken more seriously here if I came out as someone "in the know"? My guess is that all it would get me is some hard looks at the next Region meeting.....oops, freudian slip.   No thanks, if my ideas can't stand on their own merit, then so be it...I'll remain the kid on the block.

[lordmonar]

Nope...sorry this is CAP Talk.

The point being...in an debate, one of the first things you must do is establish your bonefides.  What are your qualifications to talk on the subject?  Where is your area of expertise.

Now you got a perfect right to just be a nobody troll who spouts off anything they please.  You also have the right to have an opinion even if you are new and it may be on a subject that is not withing your scope of expertise.

So let me give you mine.

I am a retired (22 year) USAF MSgt who now works as a defense contractor.

I have been in CAP for 7 years now.

I have commanded two squadrons.

I am mainly a cadet programs guy...but I am also very active in the AE and ES missions.

I have been a contributer here on CT for four years now.

I have debated on this subject, the subject of the CAP NCO corps, the subject of flight officers and many other varied topics.

This is not the first time some one has said "we need to make our ranks more important"....and it won't be the last.

I agree 2d Lt should be the entry level rank and we need to axe the NCO and FO ranks.......ain't gonna happen.

I agree that we could make Level I training a little more meaningful.....it used to be that way....but there were problems with that as well. (such as having to wait 6+ months for the stupid course to be held, resulting in people remaining SMWOG for over a year!)

The current system is a compromise between a lot of competeing requirments.

Basically put....SMWOG is just a holder.....not a rank.  2d Lt is the newguyontheblock. 

Now...on the topic of CAP regs.....well they suck!  The handful that are well written usually never get debated...it is the stupid ones that make no sense or contradict themselves that get air time.

You have to understand that there are the regs and there is the way we actually do things....this is no different then any large company including the military.

CAP for the most part simply pretends that FOs and NCO's don't exist.  The few times they are mentioned in regulations it is often very vague and confusing.

Your ideas have some merit....but you got to sell them.  You broke off your argument to fight about somantics and stuff that has no meaning to the argument at hand.

Step 1...identify the problem.
Step 2...identify possible causes of that problem.
Step 3...suggest possible course of action to solve the problem (or more specifically the cause of said problem).

So where are we now?

You have still failed to really identify the problem.  Which means we don't know the cause.  Your suggested solution won't even solve the basic partial problem that you have outlined.


So let's go back....

You assert that we hand out 2d Lt too easily?  Let's define that more specifially....that would be step 1.
Focus on just that one part before we look into root causes or suggested fixes.

[Eclipse]

Would my ideas really be taken more seriously here if I came out as someone "in the know"?

Yes.

[SarDragon]

Still ticking ...

[flyboy53]

(((SIGH!!!!!)))

You know there were two chief master sergeants at this year's NSC. Their presence there was a test program; just like the NCO Program is now. For all the quibbling there has been about the NCO program, if the intention isn't for former NCOs to progress through the officer corps, then why does the regulation give a correlation between the top three NCO ranks and the appropriate CAP officer rank?

The entire NCO Program could go away; that's why only former NCOs are entitled to wear their ranks now. They're the ones designing it. The average CAP senior member coming off the street can't join in those ranks, they can't get promoted; and for all the talk about the regs, you won't find anything in a Table of Organization that addresses senior member NCOs. Our entire program is based on an officer corps.

Do you know why it's a test? Do you know why it's been nearly 40 years since the program ended...well I'm going to tell you. It relates to this entire string. Promotions were local, people without any military service were brought in and made instant master sergeants. Our program came under the fire of the AFSA (Air Force Sergeants Association, the NCOA, and even the entire Air Force Senior NCO Corps....it was gone, finished.

So yeah, sure, the ECI-13 course equal that I took, as allowed by the reg, was the NCO Academy...but outside those equivalent courses, everything in our PD program relates to levels that coorelate to officer ranks. A CAP Master Sergeant will never be a squadron commander or higher.

I have been around this program long enough (joined in 1966 as a cadet and got my Wilson in December (some of you know may know who I am). I'm a wing officer and a senior observer. I've even had AF assignments as base liaison and a Reserve Assistance Program NCO. Sure I wish there were NCOs. I enjoyed being a master sergeant: I'd rather be where I am now. I've worked too hard to get here...and one more thing, it really bugs me when some one gets arrogant with people that have more experience.

[Hoorah]

I'm starting this off based on a minor "mini-discussion" from the latest Commission thread. I have to agree with a previous post about how easy it is to simply be handed those shiny golden bars in six months. It's a hard thought that I just typed up about 3 pages of support for (then thought it was a bit pointless and decided against posting it all). In short, the insignia of an officer in this country is something special, and it should take more than some random 21-year old with a diploma or GED to obtain through a couple simple online courses and six months membership in an organization.



I would agree that 2nd Lt's should explore there rank at that level for a little bit longer for Cadets. See what they are missing before moving on to C/Cap,C/Major,C/LTC,C/Col before they head to the dark side and in my opinion with the senior members I know very well have real hated how they wish they would have explored the Cadet Side more although they realized that so they stay with Cadets on the Cadet Side since the dark side  is very boring.={no Offense)

[flyboy53]

One more thing, now I've been in six wings; been a group commander; an assistant communications officer; a historian; a deputy commander for cadets an assistant wing PAO in two wings; a deputy group commander; an AEO at squadron and group level and an assistant wing DAE. I'm at the highest rank I'll ever achieve short of being elected to something and have one search and rescue find to my credit. However, I really don't think that makes me Mr. Know-It-All. Things change and I'm always learning something new.

I for one have grown to appreciate all of my learned colleages on this site, I do value your insight and experience, and I thank you for all you do.

[Hoorah]

Thanks

[Eclipse]

(((SIGH!!!!!)))

You know there were two chief master sergeants at this year's NSC. Their presence there was a test program; just like the NCO Program is now. For all the quibbling there has been about the NCO program, if the intention isn't for former NCOs to progress through the officer corps, then why does the regulation give a correlation between the top three NCO ranks and the appropriate CAP officer rank?

I agree with your whole thought, this just extends it...

Frankly? Because whomever is writing this program doesn't understand the fundamental reasoning behind the NCO/Enlisted, doer/manager mentality.  They are trying to be inclusive to NCO's they feel might be more enticed to play CAP if they can wear their stripes, when the truth is that as soon as a real NCO gets the idea as to how CAP works, he's going to know the NCO/enlisted/officer caste system will never work in a volunteer organization beyond just as a time delimiter like in the cadet corps.

Lord knows any military e4-9 has more leadership experience than the average damp CAP 2d Lt., so I have no issue with granting them equivalence for their NCO grade as we do today, but the actual NCO will never be more than an anomaly in CAP.

[FW]

^The person trying to write the NCO program is a retired AF NCO.  However, I'm still not sure how the whole NCO issue ever started in the first place.  As Flyboy1 stated so well, the reasons why our previous NCO program failed still exist.  We discuss the "significance" of our grade structure however, we have something which works for us.  My bottom line: our missions do not suffer as a result of our grade structure. 

[MSgt Van]

"   more leadership experience than the average damp CAP 2d Lt., "
Cap Col. I'd say...

[RiverAux]

I've always thought it more than a little bit funny that the old CAP NCO program was thought sacrilegious by "real" NCOs so it went away, but we retained the officer corps.  Logically you would have thought that it would have been the other way around. 

But, to try to stay on point......

While I support higher standards for promotions in general, I don't think it really worth the time to worry about the low end of the officer scale very much.  For the most part, those in the 2nd Lt. rank are either just about ready to drop out of the program because after joining they found it didn't meet their needs or expectations OR they're only going to stay there for a short time before moving up. 

I think we're better off starting with relatively low barriers at the low end of the officer scale and then making it much harder to move up to each higher rank.  So, the fact that it isn't too hard to become a 2nd Lt doesn't bother me a lot.   

And of course many here know my advocacy for doing away with special appointments and mission-related skills appointments entirely (yes, including no recognition of previous military rank).  I believe that even though they only impact about a quarter of our members (my estimate based on percentage of members holding a rank for which they don't have the corresponding PD achievement), they radically lower the perceived value of all our ranks.