SM vs C/AB - Why the discrepancy?

[RiverAux]

Why not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".

Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand.  Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).

Someone pointed out in another thread (and I don't know this to be true, but will accept their word for it), that the CAP Aerospace Education Members and Cadet Sponsor Members get membership cards with "SM" on them.  If that is the case, the situation is even worse than I had thought -- Not only do we not assign new regular members with a real grade, we refer to them as if they had a grade, and then use that same non-grade term to refer to members outside the regular membership category.   Sort of weakens the argument that "if it looks like a grade....it is a grade", since now those saying that are going to have to believe that AEMs and CSMs have grades as well....

[High Speed Low Drag]

It is also my understanding that Senior Member NCOs also are listed as "SM" in the database.

[Nathan]

Why not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".

Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand.  Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).

I still haven't figured out how giving them an arbitrary grade of "Airman" (or whatever) would actually CHANGE anything. For all intents and purposes, SMWOG IS a grade, even if it's considered "not a grade." At the end of the day, nothing would change for the SM except the words we use to refer to them. Would they be granted access to anything else they should have with a title other than "SMWOG"? Would they be more respected? Doubtful.

Not only that, has anyone mentioned the fact that any regulation dealing with SM's would likely have to be rewritten or supplemented for the sake of giving the SMWOG a new title?

I've argued for grade changes on the cadet side so that we had an all-enlisted cadet corps, since cadets GENERALLY do the job of the enlisted guys in CAP, while SM generally do the job of officers. I think there would be a lot of issues SOLVED by changing the grades, such as the coherence of the program (difference between a Maj and a C/Maj), a training program that's easier to focus, etc. These would be noticeable changes (arguably).

But unless I've missed something in the thread, I can't find what would actually CHANGE for the SM except the title, and it seems like we have other things we could be spending time on than changing an arbitrary title that most SM's hold for six months (or less, in the case of advanced promotions).

[lordmonar]

Why not label Senior Members who have not earned a grade as "CAP Member (Senior)".

Its not so much what we call new senior members, but what they actually ARE that is the issue at hand.  Once we decide to give them a grade, we can argue about what that grade should be called (assuming we just don't call them Airmen, which would be the easiest thing to do).

Someone pointed out in another thread (and I don't know this to be true, but will accept their word for it), that the CAP Aerospace Education Members and Cadet Sponsor Members get membership cards with "SM" on them.  If that is the case, the situation is even worse than I had thought -- Not only do we not assign new regular members with a real grade, we refer to them as if they had a grade, and then use that same non-grade term to refer to members outside the regular membership category.   Sort of weakens the argument that "if it looks like a grade....it is a grade", since now those saying that are going to have to believe that AEMs and CSMs have grades as well....

I think we are all just going around in circles here.

What exactly is a "grade" any ways?

SM is a title, designation, place holder, what ever.........how is that any different the 2d LT or C/AB?

They have "rank" as senior members.......(above all cadets and below all CAP NCOs)......at least socially.

So I get back to my original statement even when they are refer ed to as Senior Members With Out Grade...they in fact do have a grade.

Part of this argument even touches the old thread about referring to Senior Members as Officers....and the confusion that come out of that.

The fact that sponsor, patron and AE members are all refer ed to as SM does not lesson the "if it looks like a grade" argument but actually strengthens it, as all those "other" category members have grade too.  At least as long as we want to include them in the discussion that CAP is a military organisation.

Bottom line......no matter what the legal or regulatory implications come to.....when a new member has to fill out a form that asks for "grade" they are going to put down either SM or SMWOG.

So it is a de facto grade.

[Gunner C]

No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.

You are incorrect.  You have no idea whatsoever as to what a warrant officer is.  A warrant officer is an officer in the RM. They are single specialty officers who, in the paygrades of W2 and above, hold presidential commissions, just like 2d Lts through Colonels.  They command but DO NOT command officers of higher grades.  Period.  Check out the federal law that governs warrant officers.  CAP Senior Members ARE NOT like warrant officers.  Warrant officers have skills, 2d Lts do not.  Neither do SMs.

Before you put electrons to screen, do some research.

[HGjunkie]

No, you're wrong. Think of them more like a military Warrant Officer. In the Navy, per regulation, even though a WO is "junior" to say, an Ensign, they are specifically enabled to assume command over commissioned officers. WOs have a grade, they are just able to hold position over those of a higher grade.

You are incorrect.  You have no idea whatsoever as to what a warrant officer is.  A warrant officer is an officer in the RM. They are single specialty officers who, in the paygrades of W2 and above, hold presidential commissions, just like 2d Lts through Colonels.  They command but DO NOT command officers of higher grades.  Period.  Check out the federal law that governs warrant officers.  CAP Senior Members ARE NOT like warrant officers.  Warrant officers have skills, 2d Lts do not.  Neither do SMs.

Before you put electrons to screen, do some research.

+5
GO WARRANT OFFICERS! WOOOO!!

[Short Field]

+5
GO WARRANT OFFICERS! WOOOO!!

Well thought out comments....not.

[AirDX]

We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join. 

So why are you starting another one?  This is a solution looking for a problem.  Does anyone, other than a few on CAPTalk, care?

I didn't think so.

[lordmonar]

We have had many, many discussions here about the oddball position that new senior members are put in when they join. 

So why are you starting another one?  This is a solution looking for a problem.  Does anyone, other than a few on CAPTalk, care?

I didn't think so.

I just like arguing about it!

[a2capt]

Well thought out comments....not.

:clap:
Seems it's all about post count.   Quality is better than Quantity.
+5!!!

[HGjunkie]

+5
GO WARRANT OFFICERS! WOOOO!!

Well thought out comments....not.

Problem? I did that for a reason.

[SarDragon]

And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. 

[HGjunkie]

And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. 

well, nobody on this board knows that reason.

[davidsinn]

And that reason apparently escapes most of the readers. 

well, nobody on this board knows that reason.

Then why do it?

[RVT]

My solution to that would be to run ALL new senior members - not just the 18 to 21 group - through the flight officer ranks.

The only person who would hold the rank of SM would be the brand new member who has not yet done level 1, and the title would probably be gone before they even have a uniform

Make FO1, 2 & 3 an automatic promotion for levels 1, 2 and 3.  for the 18-21 group, this is approximately what they are anyway, so they don't even need to be redefined.

Leave the commissioned officer ranks just as they are.  When the person qualifies for promotion to 2LT and wishes to take that route, they leave the FO structure behind.  Some will.  Some will not.

[Spaceman3750]

Make FO1, 2 & 3 an automatic promotion for levels 1, 2 and 3.  for the 18-21 group, this is approximately what they are anyway, so they don't even need to be redefined.

Not really.
Flight Officer = L1 & 3mos SM
Technical Flight Officer = Specialty Track Rating & 6mos FO
Senior Flight Officer = L2 and 12mos TFO

No level 3.

[RVT]

Not really.
Flight Officer = L1 & 3mos SM
Technical Flight Officer = Specialty Track Rating & 6mos FO
Senior Flight Officer = L2 and 12mos TFO
No level 3.

You can't get to level 3 in 3 years.  But if it was extended past age 21 you could.

[FlyTiger77]

My solution to that would be to run ALL new senior members - not just the 18 to 21 group - through the flight officer ranks.

Why?

Rank/grade has nothing to do with the functioning and leadership of CAP. It merely denotes PD accomplishment (or lack thereof).

[Short Field]

This is an issue that, if the new member is active, goes away in six months.  If the member is not active, then it works even better.

[Eclipse]

A three-year in-service training program would be exactly what we need to fix a lot of issues, from empty shirts, once-a-year band campers, and members so ill informed as to be dangerous.