CAP has official grade abbreviations

[Pace]

Sure they do... all paygrades are written in the same manner. E-1 through O-9

I'm sure the Joint Chiefs would disagree. 

[CPT Anderson]

That's why I put both "titles" in my signature block, as per my "user name" is my Army grade, not CAP, as I plan on getting promoted sooner than later....but my retired grade will always stay the same. 

[jb512]

That's why I put both "titles" in my signature block, as per my "user name" is my Army grade, not CAP, as I plan on getting promoted sooner than later....but my retired grade will always stay the same. 

(The AF and CAP use lower case letters... Capt) 

[Al Sayre]

The all caps version CAPT is used to indicate a USN/USCG O-6...

[gallagheria]

So which is correct? Some regs show that the rank abbreviations have periods in them, others do not. This is for both the CAP and the Air Force. For instance, Capt or Capt.

[JoeTomasone]

My understanding is that it has no periods, but National is so inconsistent themselves that looking to them for guidance is pointless.   Even my membership card says 1Lt. 

[Lt Oliv]

Interesting that now they seem to have eliminated the CAP NCO Grade of SGT. 

I can't imagine anybody wanting to hang on to their enlisted grade if they were below E-7....

[Eclipse]

...

Its 80 and sunny outside, I have no idea why I even commented or anyone cares about something that effects less than 50 people out of 55,000.

[Lt Oliv]

I'd encourage you to flip back to the first page of the thread.

You are also incorrect that you need to be an E-5 to come over as an NCO, because E-4 is an NCO/Petty Officer in the Navy and Marine Corps, and you are an NCO in the Army if you hold the rank of Corporal (which is also E-4).

My point was simply that while I have seen those who held paygrades E-7 through E-9 hold CAP NCO ranks, I have not seen (and would be surprised to see) someone who held a rank below E-7 want to hang onto it throughout CAP.

[RogueLeader]

I have seen two first hand that were SSgt.  They are content with their choice.  Just because you do not understand the reasons why, that doesn't mean that they do not have good ones.

[Lt Oliv]

I have seen two first hand that were SSgt.  They are content with their choice.  Just because you do not understand the reasons why, that doesn't mean that they do not have good ones.

Didn't say they didn't have good reasons.  Nor am I passing judgment on those who opt not to receive CAP Officer grades.  I am simply making the observation that I haven't seen it, and that it would surprise me (though not appall or otherwise disturb me) to see someone retain a grade like E-5 or an NCO E-4 grade.

[Nathan]

I've seen it. The guy was proud to be a sergeant. What more really needs to be explained?

[PHall]

Interesting that now they seem to have eliminated the CAP NCO Grade of SGT. 

I can't imagine anybody wanting to hang on to their enlisted grade if they were below E-7....

Probably because the Air Force eliminated the Grade of Sergeant a number of years ago.
The first NCO Grade is Staff Sergeant.

[Lt Oliv]

I was actually just making an observation because this thread began (in 2006) mentioning the NCO grade of SGT, and apparently that was removed sometime a little bit more recently than when the AF did away with it. 

And I would really appreciate it if people would quit getting bent out of shape over my statement.  I am not "demanding" an explanation from someone who retained NCO rank, I am not judging people who do, I simply made the statement that I cannot imagine doing it (as a former Navy Petty Officer).  Period.  I don't care who you know who did it, how proud, decorated or honorable they were or what their favorite after work past time is.  I was simply making a statement while pointing out that CAP once had a rank, and now it doesn't. 

[Eclipse]

I was actually just making an observation because this thread began (in 2006) mentioning the NCO grade of SGT, and apparently that was removed sometime a little bit more recently than when the AF did away with it. 

It was not a recent change.

[Lt Oliv]

Again, I will refer you to the first page of this thread, where it was cited in 2006.

[Eclipse]

Again, I will refer you to the first page of this thread, where it was cited in 2006.

Yes, in Nov, 2006 (nearly three years ago), Pylon cited 35-5, however the specific issues you are referring to had not been changed since before I joined the program in 1999.

Not a recent change.

[Lt Oliv]

It seems we're talking about two different things, and it is pretty inconsequential, anyway.  I'm ready to move on in life.

[MIKE]

So since the reg has changed since this was posted, then I guess we can unsticky and lock this one.