The significance of 2Lt in CAP

[Eclipse]

^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.

I believe this is more legacy from HWSRN and his friend in IAWG.
Some of you more seasoned members here may recall the "spirited" conversations which occurred right after he was appointed...

[flyboy53]

Actually, one of those two chiefs at NSC is on that team. She came from the Pentagon and from HQ ACC. I don't think she had anything to do with HWSRN, but what is really interesting is that she (a chief master sergeant) is assigned to the Congressional Squadron.

And you're right about one thing. I got into a discussion with her one morning about why a CAP NCO Program couldn't be more like the AFR or ANG (you know all the skill levels and NCO PD stuff) and she noted it was because it would be too time consuming....and by the way, the idea was to channel them through the existing PD Program....humm.

Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?

I remember a time in this organization when being a first lieutenant was a big thing and anything above a captain was pretty rare. It really hit home when one of you guys dug up that World War II list that showed that Gill Robb Wilson was only a captain. I also remember when the idea was to get scratches on your second lieutenant bars because it showed you had been around a while.

I like the way things are now, but then you do hear a lot of "not everyone can be lieutenant colonels or something like that." Well, true, but with only an officer corps for progression, it seems like we keep getting resolutions before the National Board to create higher general ranks for what is actually more upward mobility. I really believe we need less emphasis on higher general ranks and to be more careful who we promote and when. Six months TIG doesn't mean that a person is automatically eligible for promotion to second lieutenant.

In retrospect, being a little more careful and adding a little more ceremony or even encouraging the art of appointment certificates may give more meaning to each rank. That's what I believe adds more significance or meaning to second lieutenants.

[lordmonar]

^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.

+1

[lordmonar]

^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.

I believe this is more legacy from HWSRN and his friend in IAWG.
Some of you more seasoned members here may recall the "spirited" conversations which occurred right after he was appointed...

I have no idea what you are talking about?   

[High Speed Low Drag]

In retrospect, being a little more careful and adding a little more ceremony or even encouraging the art of appointment certificates may give more meaning to each rank. That's what I believe adds more significance or meaning to second lieutenants.

That is what we have started to do at our squadron - Each grade (senior as well as cadet) gets a little ceremony.  When a SMWOG gets their 2nd Lt bars, they are handed a certificate and a CAP Officer appointment certificate reading similar to the AF officer appointment.  (My Leadership Officer, a LTC, told me where he found it, but I forget.)  It has really helped the "specialness" for when a person gets the bar.

[Eclipse]

NHQ has been recommending all members re-affirm the pledge as part of promotion as well, which I personally think is a great idea.

[JayT]

Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?

Where are they authorized?

[SarDragon]

Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?

Where are they authorized?

Apparently, nowhere now. The closest reference I can find is page 97, but that just talks about the chevrons embroidered on the sleeves.

The blank grey sleeves are for cadet officers to wear mini rank on their shirts.

[flyboy53]

It's vague, but it's in 39-1.

Table 6-1 makes reference to senior member rank being worn on shoulder sleves, so senior members with rank wear gray sholder sleves. There is, however, an error in the table that shows the senior member shoulder sleve rank insignia because it only shows those for officers.  Remember that NCOs, by AF Regulation, only wear their ranks on their sleves. There aren't NCO shoulder sleve rank in the Air Force anymore.

Vanguard does sell a gray senior member enlisted rank sleve. Only the CAP is embroidered on it.

[flyboy53]

Another thing, a chief is a chief. I didn't like one aspect of their uniforms. They wore CAP cutouts on their lapels which harkened back to SMWOG. I though that was a little demeaning because isn't that why the gray shoulder sleves without rank were authorized?

Where are they authorized?

Apparently, nowhere now. The closest reference I can find is page 97, but that just talks about the chevrons embroidered on the sleeves.

The blank grey sleeves are for cadet officers to wear mini rank on their shirts.

Remember, cadet officers wear blue shoulder sleves, not gray. I think the blue ones even have an embroidered dot to line up the cadet rank insignia. The gray enlisted only have CAP on them.

[ßτε]

Cadet officers wear blue epaulet sleeves.

The blank grey epaulet sleeves, as far as I can tell, were for senior member NCOs to use with pin on insignia.
They were never authorized for cadets nor SMWOG.

[SarDragon]

It's vague, but it's in 39-1.

Table 6-1 makes reference to senior member rank being worn on shoulder sleves, so senior members with rank wear gray sholder sleves. There is, however, an error in the table that shows the senior member shoulder sleve rank insignia because it only shows those for officers.  Remember that NCOs, by AF Regulation, only were their ranks on their sleves. There aren't NCO shoulder sleve rank in the Air Force anymore.

Vanguard does sell a gray senior member elisted rank sleve. Only the CAP is embroidered on it.

That's senior member officer rank, in column 3 of the table.

6-1. Wear of Grade Insignia. Cadet and senior member officer grade insignia will be worn on those uniform items listed in Table 6-1. Cadet NCOs and airman chevrons will be worn on the right lapel/collar. CAP senior members who hold NCO and airmen grades may wear cloth chevrons sewn on the sleeve or gray epaulet sleeves with embroidered chevrons.

Since the embroidered sleeves have never been available, and pinning the rank on is no longer done by the AF, and it isn't mentioned in the copy of the 39-1 I have in front of me, my answer to the Q - "Where are they authorized?" - remains - "Apparently, nowhere now."

My bust on the blue vs. greyt for cadets. It's been a long time since I've seen cadets wear that particualr item.

[flyboy53]

Gee, does that mean that someone has to tell NHQ they need to change the reg?

Have we spotted another error or did Vanguard do it again?

[tdepp]

Gee, does that mean that someone has to tell NHQ they need to change the reg?

Have we spotted another error or did Vanguard do it again?

SMWOG = Officer without rank? 

And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt? 

On a more practical note, if the SMWOG is working hard and doing a good job, frankly, what difference does it make?  We have a retired ANG general in our squadron who is a SMWOG who is extremely helpful to our squadron.  He's probably forgotten more about leadership and aviation than the rest of us will probably ever know.

PD is up to the individual.  Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing.  Others don't.  I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank.  Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

[Eclipse]

SMWOG = Officer without rank? 

Grade

And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt? 

For better or worse there is no 6-month requirement for promotion.  Upon completing Level 1 (which can be on your first day
as an approved member), you can be promoted as high as appropriate to the situation.

PD is up to the individual.  Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing.  Others don't.  I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank.  Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

It may be up to the individual, but it should not be.  Yes, we need pilots, but they are only a small percentage of our members, and their skills are needed for only about 1/2 of 1/3rd of our missions (16.5%?).

My personal experience has been that members who choose to forgo PD tend to be ill-informed about CAP and how it really works, which means that the first time there is a bump in their "thing", they quit.  Further, these members tend to hold "the other guy" responsible for everything else that needs to be done in CAP, which is inappropriate in a volunteer organization.

The most effective members I work with view PD as either personal growth or a necessary evil, but not as "optional".  While we would suffer some attrition if we pushed harder on PD, those who stayed would cause a lot less problems.

The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.

[tdepp]

SMWOG = Officer without rank? 

Grade

And aren't you supposed to be a SMWOG for a time (6 months?) until you do what you need to do to be 2nd Lt? 

For better or worse there is no 6-month requirement for promotion.  Upon completing Level 1 (which can be on your first day
as an approved member), you can be promoted as high as appropriate to the situation.

PD is up to the individual.  Some people get into the whole advance up the ranks thing.  Others don't.  I just want SMs who I can depend upon and who have the training they need to do the positions and tasks they take on, regardless of rank.  Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

It may be up to the individual, but it should not be.  Yes, we need pilots, but they are only a small percentage of our members, and their skills are needed for only about 1/2 of 1/3rd of our missions (16.5%?).

My personal experience has been that members who choose to forgo PD tend to be ill-informed about CAP and how it really works, which means that the first time there is a bump in their "thing", they quit.  Further, these members tend to hold "the other guy" responsible for everything else that needs to be done in CAP, which is inappropriate in a volunteer organization.

The most effective members I work with view PD as either personal growth or a necessary evil, but not as "optional".  While we would suffer some attrition if we pushed harder on PD, those who stayed would cause a lot less problems.

The "You're lucky I showed up at all..." mentality is the root cause of many of our operational challenges.

Eclipse:

Yours is an opinion here on CT I value and consider because of your good sense and experience in CAP.  I guess I have not seen the issues you mention.  I'm not saying that doesn't happen, I'm just saying in my admittedly limited experience, that has not been a problem.  Obviously, you've seen that SMWOG who are not actively pursing PD sometimes are not as reliable as those pursuing PD and ranks.  I have found that if people are motivated, they will participate in PD. 

Anyway, good points and another POV I need to consider.

[RogueLeader]

As a side note, there are too many that have joined, but i never see them at a meeting or sarex or any es trainig.  They are still SM but have not even done a single thing but fly for themselves.  Why should I want to promote them if they don't do anything but be a number on my roster?

[Cecil DP]

I think the NCO progression idea is dead. If only because it would have experienced NCO's having to answer to Lieutenants and Captain with little or no military or CAP experience. I would advocate for a requirement that commissioning wait until completion of Level II and revamp the PD program and promotion requirements from there.

[RiverAux]

Well, they basically already do answer to CAP officers with varying levels of experience, both military and otherwise, so whats the difference?  By the way, an CAP NCO with no CAP experience could certainly be just as big a problem as any former military officer who has no CAP experience but gets a CAP rank based on their previous experience. 

[Short Field]

Many of our pilots don't seem to care about rank and PD yet they are probably are most important human resources.  No pilots, no flying, no CAP.

IIRC, there was an accident report released in the last year or so that stated the majority of CAP aircraft accidents were caused by CAP pilots who were only Level I.  I remember there was a lot of discussion about how this was not important or a correct assessment of flying ability since most pilots were at Level I.

Just be happy we have people who want to join and encourage them to learn and advance (and explain why they should advance).  What's on their shoulders is less important than what's between their ears.

And PD is what puts knowledge about CAP between their ears.