CAP grades

[arajca]

The SMSgt & CMSgt grades would be reserved for prior-service. Temp grade of E-7 to E-9 1Sgt for the elected 1Sgt Pgm. (E-7/1Sgt at Sq/Gp, E-8/1Sgt at Wg, E-9/1Sgt at Reg/Nat, one CCSMgt chairs National 1Sgt's council).

emphasis mine

I don't see where non-military CAP NCO's could progress above MSgt in this idea.

[Major Carrales]

In order for there to be Enlisted Grades in CAP there would have to be a paradigm shift too radical for many to support.

Here is what would have to be developed...

1) Fair criteria for Officership in CAP.  This is more than just height and weight to fit into uniforms, but real skill sets.  Maybe people will a college degree or other skill set like a pilot.  Then one would need officer training. 

Devil's advocacy: How any potential CAP officers, who are volunteers, would actually have the several weeks to take off of work?  Then, how many of potentials would opt not to be officers?  We might have whole units of NCOs and the like without officers.  What then? What about "post-backs," those that are already Majors and Lt COls, will you drop them in grade?  Forfeit their officership.  Drop them in grade and you may well drop them from the program.

2) Prior Service promotion:  At present the NCO grades are more of an appratus to honor prior service.  Many are glad to keep their prior service rank.  One would have to mitigate the CAP NCO from a Prior Service one.

3) Mechinism for promotion:  Currently there is no mechinism for promotion.  Many people like the reward of getting promoted every now and then.  With NCOs I have met they opy out becuse they don't want to be frozen in rank for ever and don't like the idea of jumping to some officer rank.

4) Total redesign of the way CAP works.  Sell that to even have of only the people who post here....not to mention the whole CAP that does not.

[arajca]

Here's an idea - Four types of member:

• Instructor/Support/Reserve - those members who join to support a unit be serving as Finance, Admin, Pers, etc officer. Also includes CSM and AEM. These are the members that have no interest in progression. They are content to show up and do the work that needs to be done to keep the unit functioning. Many MLO's also fall into this category - but not all by a long shot.
• Enlisted - This is the new member who knows CAP are three letter in the alphabet. They are interested in some progression, but not in being a leader at the time, although they may decide to develop leadership skill and take a leadership role later. They generally don't bring any critical skills to justify being an officer, although they may bring skill to justify advanced enlisted grade. These members are most likely those who will serve in ES as operators, GTM's, MRO's, etc.GTL, CUL, etc would be NCO's.
• Warrant Officers - Members who bring crictical skills to the organization. Also, for those members who progress into the mid level ES supervisory roles, GOBD, AOBD, MSO, IO, etc. Pilots would fall into the warrant officer category as well. EMT's, non-BA degreed medical professionals, MLO's, educators, etc would also become warrants. Enlisted members can take a Warrant Officer Course to enter the warrant grades as well.
• Commissioned Officers - Those members who desire leadership roles. They will have more indepth training, including residence and correspondence course work. These will be the leaders of the organization. BA or higher degreed medical professionals, chaplains, legal, etc will receive commissions, but will not be eligible for command unless they complete the leadersip training for their grade. The list will follow AF guidelines.
  

If a unit has no officers, an otherwise qualified warrant or NCO may be breveted to Capt for the sole purpose of commanding the unit. When they step down, they return to the appropriate warrant of enlisted grade. Part of their responsibility will be to get a commissioned officer to replace them.

Current officers will be frozen, until they back fill their training or test out. They will also have the option of dropping to warrant or enlisted grades. A transition table will need to be established to assist in this.

All promotions will include a combination of required training (different for each category) and points. Unlike the military, the points needed for promotion will not vary from job to job, nor will they fluctate from month to month. I.e. 300 points to go from SSgt to TSgt this month, and 500 next month. The military does this because they have a limited number of slots for each grade, which CAP shouldn't have. (side note: when I was AD, I knew of one Sgt who got promoted to SSG even though the point level was set at max because there were no E-6 slots available. He managed to accumulate 999 points and the Army had to promote him. Many other Sgt's were quite upset because they could not get promoted).

Points will be earned from activity participation, SAREX's, NCSA's, wing activities, additional schools, college course work, Ae presentations to outside orgs/schools, CAP presentations to other orgs, etc. Basically activites beyond the unit regular meetings. Also, additional/mulitple PD ratings above Tech would receive points. (example: First tech rating receives 15 points. That's it for tech ratings only 15 points. First senior rating receives 20 points, each additional senior rating receives an additional 15 points. First Master rating receives 25 points, each subsequent Master rating receives 20 points.)

Any change in the CAP grade structure would require a huge paradigm shift.

[DNall]

The SMSgt & CMSgt grades would be reserved for prior-service. Temp grade of E-7 to E-9 1Sgt for the elected 1Sgt Pgm. (E-7/1Sgt at Sq/Gp, E-8/1Sgt at Wg, E-9/1Sgt at Reg/Nat, one CCSMgt chairs National 1Sgt's council).

emphasis mine

I don't see where non-military CAP NCO's could progress above MSgt in this idea.

E7/MSgt/1Sgt,
E8/SMSgt/1Sgt,
E9/CMSgt/1Sgt.

I've gone back & forth a bit on MSgt, but right now I have it as earnable with completion of the mod'd Lvl V & TIG (recall E1/AB covers pre-Lvl I, & the COP level covers one promotin as well). However, E8 & E9 are not earnable by professional development, just like Brig & Maj Gen are not earnable by professional development now, nor would they by under this new system. Anyone CAN get to those grades tough. One way is prior-service NCOs keep their grade. The other is to be elected by the members to serve as 1Sgt. IF you're 9 months into CAP & your Sq decides to make you their rep to Gp, then you put on MSgt/1Sgt stripes for your one year term, when you get done you take them off & should be just in time to promote from Amn to A1C. If later on in your career you are chosen by Gp (Sqs in no Gp states) to rep at Wg, then you put on 1Sgt(E8) - the chair of the Wing Council & the rep to Region both get 1Sgt(E9). The region & national council members are all 1Sgt(E9), the chair at national is CCMSgt(E9). Now, if you've complete Lvl V before or during one of those terms, then you can keep the MSgt/SMSgt/CMSgt stripes w/o the diamond (or star). It's basically the same thing as CAC, just using NCO grades in place of dif color cords. I think it's a pretty slick solution personally & does great service to those top grades while adding a very nice democratic voice of the troops while maintaining the command structure above. I assume the overwhelming majority of members elected to these positions will be non-prior-service, as they would be most representative of our membership.

[DNall]

Maj C,
For an enlisted side to be created it would have to be in conjunction with more significant & legitimate training of officer candidates meeting higher standards. The two things are linked & complimentary. You don't want everyone to be officers, you want most people not to be - like 20-25% officers to enlisted. You want a lot of people that qualify for officer to choose to stay enlisted, based on the duties & PD/PME training requirements. There is no several weeks to take off, there are NO weeks to take off. The officer training program defined here requires one year of regular meetings (80-90% attendance) & some hard work (about 8hrs/month) on computer modules you're guided thru with the help of a mentor. That's probably the same level of time you're putting in right now.

Yes it does require a remaking of the character of CAP from the ground up, and would be a slightly rocky transition, but the product on the backside goes back to our roots, follows the example of our parent org, and puts out common sense product that outsiders can see & understand because it bear resemblence to what they know, and that in turn makes them comfortable with us, which means mutual respect as peers & trust in our abilities which is the foundation upon which we reach for the stratosphere on new critical missions for America. See that logic? Common sense = dramatic improvement = REAL missions for America that make our military strong so it can fight harder.

Capt Rajca,
I think you can break this down too far.
Instructor: I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like the cadet sponsor member status either. I guess we can look at that, but I'd rather pull people all the way in or not have them at all. The last thing cadets want is another teacher. What they want & what they respect is an adult that has a shared basic knowledge of military skills. I'm willing to be open minded on this one, but I'm not sure it's appropriate & it could be divisive.

Enlisted: That's a definition of Airmen, but not of NCOs. Indeed the enlisted ranks under my version ARE the primary operators in all sides of CAP.

Warrant: I disagree here, what you're describing is an NCO, people that operate at the advanced ES & direct leadership role. I can see use of WOs OR an enlisted corps, but not both. The AF doesn't use WO, so I don't think we should either. We might talk about advanced appointments to E2-E3 for certain skills (which the military does also), but that system is FAR overused & abused in the current grade system, so lets just get the change made & let the dust settle, THEN we can get a clearer picture of what skills deserve what advantage & why.

Officer: I think we had a pretty good system together. We did require a BA, but granted waivers at the associates level plus special skills or professional experience appropriate to Sq work. The specific reason that says a waiver rather than setting that as the requirement is so a subjective review of the education & skills/experience can occur to determine if this person is officer material & if they can mentally & psychologically pass the training. The standard to ENTER OCS at both the national guard & the regular Army level is NOT a BA, but rather 90 hours, & you must complete a degree while in training (guard obviously) or shortly thereafter. I've meaned that down with the benefit of discussion to account for the experience & additional skills CAP members may bring to the table. An excellent example of someone who would meet this waiver requirement is an LPN, or an insterment pilot with two-years college.

Chaplains & such would get the same direct appointments offered by the AF, after completing a transition course (3-month version of OTS), and as you stated they would not be elligible for command until they complete the PME for their current grade & could only promote by doing the same program as everyone else. No couple years to LtCol BS. It's especially important to hold true to the AF on this one as our chaplains are already on loan & some of our other professionally degreed individuals may be in the future, and we need to meet expectations.

Regarding a temp/brevet grade of 1Lt/Capt to command a Sq that doesn't have any officers... I can see that, BUT I want to keep it out of the discussion for a couple reasons at this stage. The first is the idea that all officer grade should be breveted by position as the CGAux does it, which would be VERY bad for us, strictly un-military, and not accomplish any of the core objectives we're going for at all. Second, the reason a Sq CC is slotted at the Capt level is because it theoretically requires the skills that must be attained to reach Capt. It kind of defeats the purpose when you put someone w/o the right skills in a slot & call them this grade or that just so it looks right from the outside. Now that said, I MIGHT be willing to talk about it a bit, but AFTER we get the big picture taken care of, I have some alternate ideas on unit alignment also that might just fix that situation as well.

Transition we've talked about a bit. It's workable with a system that granfathers people that earn what they got or revert. Paradigm shift & it'll move some hard headed people out teh door, but then they'd be the same ones that have stagnated & don't want to work with a changing CAP also. It's not that complicated though & very workable.

Point system:
I think we have the officer progression down pretty solid just folowing the AF model. That system of review boards w/ an AF vote is pretty strong. On the enlisted side, I see you talking point system & I'm intrigued. I've leaned on keeping the traditional adult program (swapping out for enlisted PMEs) with a pretty straight forward training plus TIG moves you up logic like we work on now. However, I could see an additional poitn requirement that ensures the member is active & hard working. It sounds complicated, and maybe a bit abrasive for current members, but interesting. You'd just have to make sure it's fair & clean up eServices a ton so you could manage logging of that data.

[AlphaSigOU]

Dennis,

So in a sense, you're talking about a WAPS (Weighted Airman Promotion System), the RealAirForce's promotion system for NCOs. With some tweakage you described above, it could be accommodated to CAP's senior member program.

Here's my take on what could be a possible promotion system for a future CAP enlisted corps:

Newly joined senior members are without grade (= Airman Basic) until such time as they complete Level I, when they sew on Airman.

Promotion to Airman First Class on a fully qualified basis based on attendance and participation in CAP activities after 9 months total CAP service to A1C.

18 months total CAP service, 12 months as an A1C, completion of a technician rating and completion of a CAP Airman Leadership School for a fully-qualified promotion to SrA.

Allow very limited 'below the zone promotions' for those few dedicated, hard-charging CAP members who complete additional training and professional development requirements. For those members, reduce the TIS/TIG six months.

This is where WCAPPS (Weighted CAP Promotion System) kicks in. The system takes into account time in service, time in grade, professional development, and certain awards and decorations into points to where a minimum point cutoff score is achieved for promotion. Promotion cycles would be done once yearly at the group and wing level.

I'll leave the finer details to be hashed out in this thread, but this might be a start.

[DNall]

Well, I don't know, I think it's worth putting some ideas on the table & seeing what comes of it. I like something that considers activity & contribution, that's taken care of on the officer side in at a promotion board. I don't think I'd take a points system so far as to be THE determining factor like WAPS is. I still think TIG/TIS & professional development should be the primary focus. What I'm open to is some kind of scoring system that would follow a set of minimum requirements (stated a few posts back) & allow below & in the zone promotions. What I mean by that is that there should be a TIG number set, but based on points: up to 20%/year can be promoted early (within reason - say 2 years rather than 3); another 60-75% are in the zone (between 3 & 4 years); and the remaining 5-20% are behind the zone (over four years). The logic there is certainly not to punish anyone, it is to be prompt with earned promotions & reward people who contribute. Regular standard participation gets you right on the TIG target & those decisions should be made ahead of time so that's your actual put on date, not when you are allowed to submit paperwork & wait 6-9 months. The highspeed folks get a chance to move up a bit faster, but with some reasonable limits & safeguards in place. Then the inactive crowd can still promote behind the zone w/o even participating at all - sometimes people's work schedules (or things like deployments, & life in general) get in the way for a year or two & we shouldn't punish them for that.

That's my initial thoughts on it, but it needs more development. It's a ncie secondary/supportive element to add on the back end of a strong program.

[BillB]

Let me get back to an earlier post. There are in CAP Officers that under theold system earned their grade by taking what used to be ECI 2, SOS, ACSC ,ICAF, and AWC. All were USAF applicable courses except ECI 2 which was a CAP specific course. Now if you come up with a plan that requires lesser style NCO courses are you going to demote these people? Freeze them in grade until they take the lesser courses? It seems that your system works fine for NEW members, but you're ignoring the training requirements that used to be in place which were more professional than the NCO training you mention.
Perhaps the way to develop better leadership is to go back to the earlier program where the AFDLI courses are required for promotion above the rank of Captain. The main problem with CAP grades is the training of 2 LT to Captain. That's where you'll normally find uniform violations, lack of leadership skills or just plain indifference to the CAP program.

[DNall]

Let me get back to an earlier post. There are in CAP Officers that under theold system earned their grade by taking what used to be ECI 2, SOS, ACSC ,ICAF, and AWC. All were USAF applicable courses except ECI 2 which was a CAP specific course. Now if you come up with a plan that requires lesser style NCO courses are you going to demote these people? Freeze them in grade until they take the lesser courses? It seems that your system works fine for NEW members, but you're ignoring the training requirements that used to be in place which were more professional than the NCO training you mention.
Perhaps the way to develop better leadership is to go back to the earlier program where the AFDLI courses are required for promotion above the rank of Captain. The main problem with CAP grades is the training of 2 LT to Captain. That's where you'll normally find uniform violations, lack of leadership skills or just plain indifference to the CAP program.

Two points there.

First, our problems aren't limited to 2Lt-Capt. Certainly field grade officers don't have the same problems as junior officers, but then tehy aren't junior officers, they face a whole new higher class of problems that we don't prepare them to deal with. That in turn causes countles sproblems or at least inefficiencies at higher echelons, and makes for a tiny pool of people ready to step up to the upper levels of command & the interaction w/ the AF & State govts that are required in those jobs. We owe our members & the organization to understand teh height of our standards is proportional to the heights we can reach as an organization.

Second, transitions. The plan would be to evaluate everyone individually. You'll get a letter saying:

You're currently blank grade; the requirements of that grade in the new system are XYZ; we've reviewed your records & find that you have completed X & Y, but not Z; if you believe this to be in error, that your records are incomplete, or you've completed a coure from our list of equivilents or another course you feel should count for this credit, pls submit electronically to NHQ/PD; if you fail to take any action in 24 months, you'll be reverted in grade to blank enlisted grade, if you then want to re-earn your current officer grade you'll have to start over from scratch in the new system. In your peronal case I believe it's going to say you're a LtCol, you've completed Lvl IV & ACSC, therefore you've completed all requirements for LtCol under the new system; further, you've completed Lvl V & AWC so are promotable to Col if assigned to a position that carries such a grade & will retain that grade after serving your term.

It's not that complicated. A moderate number of peopl emay need to take SOS or ACSC, but it's not that big a deal. The bigger issue is at the bottom of the chain. With current 2Lts or SMs, they will need to meet the req's for 1Lt under the new system. All new members from that date on would go under the new system.

[Major Carrales]

OK...now for my solution.

The biggest thing that hinders this and all "good workable ideas" here is the TRANSITION.  Dennis, Bill and numerous other have presented good food for thought...but there has to be a workable transition.

1) Freeze everyone in rank and let them "backfill."  Those above Captain will need to take a Weekend course that is intense.  Best done at a militay installation by some Military Authority.  Payment will be on the CAP Officer.

2) Those below Captain will have to backfill the new criteria for officership.  If they choose not to then they have chosen to remain a 2Lt or 1Lt forever, or until they choose to meet the criteria.

3) A new form, CAPF 12, will become a two page form that will require a person to indicate their skill sets and provide documentation.  The new enlisted ranks would be for those who seek to serve out of a command loop.

Thus, Airmen and NCOs would make up the bulk Scanners, UDF and Ground teams.  Officers would be command types and Pilots.

4) An OTS system would be in place for a commission to 2LT.  This system would be open to to anyone.  It would have to be rigorous enough to "put teeth into CAP Officership.

5) Everyone wishing to become an officer, remember there will be "Grandfathered Officers" to which that alternate route mentioned earlier should apply for advancement.

6) Since CAP Officership is radically different from Military Officership, should former officers have to take this course to retain their rank?  Unknown???

Thus, if people really want "an enlisted corps" it must provide something that is radically different than what exists now.

If such a "corps" existed, would there be the monolithic commander structure where the enlisted would have to extend the same sort of position an ACTIVE DUTY NCO would have to show an ACTIVE duty officer?

Currently there is an egalitarian ideal in CAP.  Would creating a "Officer Elite,"  "NCO corps" or "Enlisted Brotherhood" create a division we don't have now?

Personally, I don't think anyone really cares about our rank/grade but us.  I don't think it matters.  CAP is what it is and is not what it is not.  If one tries to look at CAP through the USAF rubric, that results are false.  We are volunteers...remember that always.  No pay...things done for "the love of it" and "with a passion for CAP."

Becareful with Pandora's Box...once there is little "love for CAP" or "no passion for it."  Then we are toast.

I will remain in CAP no matter what happens en re this sort of thing.  Those that quit and attack from without...well, let's just say I can't see it their way.

[DNall]

How are we radically different from the military, and is that necessarily a permenant condition? It seems to me that they volunteer to serve their country for the same reasons we do & they sure as hell don't do it for the great pay. The way I see it, they get paid because of the potential to deploy to combat & because they are legally bound to show up for service if they like it or not. Anything else is a false construct that can be changed. We work in an AF system. Our job is to help them accomplish their missions & evolve with them as those missions change. Look at an SDF. They are unpaid volunteer civilians that are free to not deploy if they choose, yet they see themselves as part of their parent service (the national guard). I think anything else is an excuse to justify a tolerance of laziness & low standards.

[arajca]

I think the single biggest driver of this discussion and the various ideas for reducing the number of officers in CAP is the lack of leadership and, dare I say it, common sense. I have seen far to many LT's, Capt's, some Maj's, and a few Lt Col's behaving - consistantly - like airmen (E-1, E-2). Too many CAP officers forget that what they're wearing on their shoulders doesn't mean the same thing as a military officer wearing the same thing. CAP desperately needs good leaders. In the past, many have joined of their own free will, but lately we aren't getting the numbers we need. To help counter our turnover rates, we need to offer CAP members something they can use outside of CAP. Good leadership training is always in demand, but no one wants to conduct it. Good leadership training can be applied outside of CAP and can, on occasion, result in financial benefits for the trainee. If you can provide good leadership training and a member gets a promotion of raise at work because of it, they will remain an active member longer because they have seen a direct positive benefit to being in CAP.

On transition, ideally, every senior member would be individually evaluated, but I can see national having a fit over the work required to do so. I think a relatively simple chart would work. Do some research to find out what previous officer training courses has been completed and incorporate those into the chart. Obviously, those courses that are no longer conducted will have to have effective date ranges, but otherwise, it should be fairly simple.

One of the biggest group of stagnent officers we have is pilots. Most have joined, completed Level I, gotten their bars, and stopped there. They do not seek leadership positions, but heaven help you if you do not recognize their bars. An example of pilots not wanting to do the work even keep the planes flying happened in a senior squadron I was a member of. 80 members, 35-40 pilots. The commander had to threaten to ground the aircraft to get a pilot to step to do the paperwork to enable the pilots to fly. The commander didn't think it was right to have a non-pilot saddled with that responsibility. Unfortunetely, I have encountered too many non-performing pilots in CAP to agree that they should get an automatic commission. Tie it to something that benefits CAP, i.e. MP, O-flight Pilot, etc, and I might accept it, but Capt just because you're a CFII, no. Not to say there aren't many pilots that are very active and work hard for CAP, but they don't make up the majority of the ones I have encountered.

[lordmonar]

I've been watching this tread for a while and throwing out a couple of suggestions as well.

What I like to hammer down is....what exactly is the problem?

Is the problem that the current CAP rank system produces officers that are competent (by CAP standards)?  That is your newly promoted CAP major can write a decent policy letter let alone plan and run an week end activity.

Is the problem CAP officers do not get any respect form "real" officers because they basically walk off the street and six months later they are 2nd Lts?

Or is the problem that we the rank on the shoulder has nothing to do with actual level of responsibility?

Any rework of the CAP rank system (big or small) must first establish what the actual goal of that system is.

Some of the people who post suggestions of a new program seem to want CAP to become some sort of USAF light.  That is, they want a CAP officer to be just as qualified as an active duty officer.  I don't necessary have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem is that they want to use the same exact model that the USAF uses to make an officer for CAP officers.

Here is why that does not make sense.

First...the USAF Officer acquisition system is basically three fold.  Academy, ROTC, and OCS.  At the end of which you usually have a 22 year old who is in my opinion about as qualified to lead as your average 18 year old Spaatz.  Some may be more qualified than other but basically you have a college degree and the basic tool kit to start to learn how to lead.

Then....the officer starts to get his real training.

If he is lucky...he is not a pilot and will be immediately (after his technical training) put into a position of leadership under the mentorship of experienced officers and senior NCOs.  After about five years you got a young captain with a lot of experience.  If he is a pilot....all that is out the window.  He may have to wait until he is a Major until he has any real leadership responsibilities and may be a Lt Col or Col before he has to supervise any enlisted personnel.  Five years or so as a Capt and he puts on Major.  

Now this makes an effective leader who is ready to take on some good leadership duties.

Now let's take CAP.

Who is our primary initial recruitment prospect?  It is not some 18 year old coming out of high school.  It is not even a 22 year old college graduate.  Our SMWOG tend to be older professionals in the mid to late 30's.

Requiring a college degree as a gate keeper for this group of people is just not necessary.  10+ years post high school is more than enough to establish if someone has the gumption to continue with his officer training.  Also...CAP does not really need a gatekeeper function because we are not investing any money into these new officers, unlike the real military.  If a new CAP officer does not seem to have what it take for leadership...we just don't give him any leadership position.  He can continue to be a follower and a doer and no one is hurt.  The USAF can't afford that.  If you are not effective as a leader they need to ease you out to make room for others (hence the up or out).

Therfore....any grade system that requires a college degree as a gate keeper function is an automatic non-starter.  It will hinder your ability to find and keep good leadership and it makes not real sense other than to follow the USAF's model.

The second problem with following the USAF model is that....there are exactly (more or less) the same amount of leadership slots as there are leaders to fill them.  The USAF acquires enough 2d Lts to ensure that there are enough Capts to fill the jobs.  They only promote those captains as the major slots come open and the same on up the line.

CAP cannot do that because we have no ability to move leaders around as the USAF can.  As a major's slot comes open in Greenland some luck officer gets his 12 month remote tour.  CAP cannot do that.  They are tied to local geographical areas.  Yes they can ask leaders to move across town to help out a struggling unit but more than an hours drive and it's no dice.

The next problem with the USAF model is money.  The USAF has it but CAP does not.  They can afford to send a Capt to SOS for a month.  In CAP you have to take leave, pay for your own transportation and pay for the training.

Want to guess how much it costs to go to Maxwell for a month?  About $5000 plus the cost of the school.

Air War College is even worse.

The next problem with the USAF model...is that it assumes a good support structure.  It assumes that there is a commander there ready to mentor his new officers.  That this mentor is has the tools to help shape the officer and that the officer has duties that are fit for him and will help him grow.

CAP has none of these.  Yes good squadrons will have a similar program...but we just don't have the same manpower support and control as the USAF does.

Finally, the USAF model just does not fit.  Leading your typical cadet squadron or even a large composite squadron with a lot of planes is not the same as leading the smallest USAF squadron.  The problems you have to deal with are completely different.  Yes the leadership principles are the same...but 80% of the training a USAF squadron gets would be totally useless for a CAP commander, and it will still require us to fill in the CAP specifics that the USAF course does not even touch.

Okay...that is my rant about CAP ranks systems.

What we need to do is develop a rank system that develops CAP officers to be able to handle the jobs a CAP officer is going to get.  IMHO that is what we have now.  Yes there are a lot of problems with it, but 90% of those problems deal with quality or quantity control as opposed to being a bad system.

So...instead of creating CAP enlisted corps and CAP OTS course.  We can focus on making our existing program better.  We can focus on making the training we do give is meaningful and quality.  We can focus or efforts in insuring that any CAP Capt (Maj, Lt Col) is up to the standards of every other CAP Capt.  We can ensure that we are bottlenecking quality leaders by not providing timely training.

If we need to clear the deck of officers who do not lead so those few who do stand out, we can easily make the rank and file Flight Officers (or warrant officers if you don't like the FO title).  Other than that any other rework will not be worth the pay off.  Just as we have former NCO's who do not want to be officers I think we would have even more potential SM's who would not join because we are making them enlisted guys.

[RiverAux]

Look at an SDF. They are unpaid volunteer civilians that are free to not deploy if they choose

Incorrect. State Defense Force members are members of a state military organization.  They are not civilians.  From a legal point of view they are exactly the same as the National Guard (when the National Guard is not in federal service, which is most of the time).  While none get paid for attending meetings, depending on what state you are in, they may get paid for being put on state active duty for emergency or other use. 

[Major Carrales]

After reading the reply by lordmonar, I am now of the mind that there is no need for an NCO structure and the best course of action is to simply better develop what we have now.

Dennis' assumption that the current structure prepetuates laziness and low standards contributed greatly to that descision.  Why, because he is talking about you and I...and every member of every unit in CAP.

CAP is a community driven Civil Defense force of volunteers that live and work in the communities we serve....and, just like those minutemen at Lexington, are all called to do extraordinary things in the preformance of duty.    We are also an Auxiliary of the USAF, but we are not active nor reserve members.  Ours has existed since 1941 as a community driven Civil Defense force and as an Auxiliarist organization of the USAF late in that same decade.

Also, arajca mentions improved LEADERSHIP in existing structures.  That is correct.

CAP FELLOWS, if we do our missions well...that sucess speaks for itself.  When the USAF has a policy that allows CAP officers to "fill slots,"with pay, in its ranks, then we can explore week and month long classes as the nominal modus operandi.

Until then, we MUST do our best when we can, with limited resources and all with no pay.  Some 90 percent of our unit's sucess has come from Member Drive, not USAF funds nor CAP Corporate assests.

That drive for CAP that comes from within. Folks, we don't need NCOs and Enlisted Ranks to have that.  We only need your drive to make it work.

[DNall]

River,
We are a federal military organization, and when on missions we are uniformed & acting under military orders - versus non-uniformed means you get shot. The law varies quite a bit from state to state on SDFs, but by international law, they CAP & the CGAux are all in the same boat. The difs in interpretation is just a matter of how it's spun. Practically speaking though, they function exactly like CAP. Anyway, I was referring to the not paid but share cultural identity & seek to adhere to similar standards - of course that all varies too.

Maj C,
Relax. Look around CAP a bit. Look at the quality & capability of our people. Are they good people that work hard, yes absolutely! However, they are not remotely capable of anything close to the kind of responsibility you could put on any military officer of the same grade - the exceptions where they are, that didn't come from anything CAP did to make them that way, and the system of advancement we have doesn't favor those few exceptional people moving into leadership roles. People like to have fun, but they don't like to be forced to look in the mirror & see their flaws then be lectured by someone on how to gain the skills to succeed at a higher level. What we need to do is work smarter not harder. That's what this is about, that & standing beside the AF, AFRes, & ANG as a full member of the team with mutual respect among peers. We need to earn our place in a changing world & that's NOT something that can be done as an individual - not in a 53k member org w/ 65 years of history. I'm not trying to live up to nutty guys flying around w/ a depth charge under the plane, I'm trying to surpass them. We need to do justice to our past by standing on the shoulders of our forbearers, not in their shadow. We have a duty to our members to train them to take the bull by the horns & lead the living hell out of CAP into the future. We need to quit burning people out just to keep our heads above water.

[lordmonar]

However, they[CAP Officers] are not remotely capable of anything close to the kind of responsibility you could put on any military officer of the same grade

Hey DNall! So what?  They are not real officers, they don't have the same responsibilities of real officers, and they don't need to be real officers.  That is the point me and the Major are trying to say. 

People like to have fun, but they don't like to be forced to look in the mirror & see their flaws then be lectured by someone on how to gain the skills to succeed at a higher level. What we need to do is work smarter not harder. That's what this is about, that & standing beside the AF, AFRes, & ANG as a full member of the team with mutual respect among peers.

But I did not join CAP to work that hard.  I as a CAP officer have no illusions that I am in any way shape or form the Peer of Active Duty AF, ANG or AFRes Officers and NO ONE in CAP should.  They should respect us for our professionalism and they should respect us for our volunteerism, and they should respect us for our adoption of the USAF culture and traditions.  But they should not respect us as peers...except as maybe honorary peers.  The let us join the club...but we all know the score.   An honorary PhD may get a Dr in front of your name...but not a job at the local university.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to inflate his own ego.  In all of CAP the only jobs that come close to what real officers do...it Wing, Regional and the National commander jobs.  Even the squadron commanders of larger squadron do not have it anywhere as hard as real officers.

We need to earn our place in a changing world & that's NOT something that can be done as an individual - not in a 53k member org w/ 65 years of history. I'm not trying to live up to nutty guys flying around w/ a depth charge under the plane, I'm trying to surpass them. We need to do justice to our past by standing on the shoulders of our forbearers, not in their shadow. We have a duty to our members to train them to take the bull by the horns & lead the living hell out of CAP into the future. We need to quit burning people out just to keep our heads above water.

Yes you are right...we need to earn our place in a changing world.  We need to find out what we do well and sell that to anyone who will pay for it.  We need to work with our existing customers and find out if there is anything else we can do for them.  We don't need to rework our internal promotion system and rank system to do any of that.  We do need to take the existing system and make sure that we are doing it to the best of our ability.  We need to make sure that those who step up to the plate and take on the jobs that need to be done are rewarded.  We need to support our leadership even if we don't know where they are taking us.  We need to ask for guidance when we don't understand our commander's vision.

And we can do all of this with out changing one thing about the CAP professional development program.  We can do all this just by enforcing the program as written and mentoring our members to the best of our abilities.

[DrJbdm]

I just read with great interest the letter the Iowa Wing Commander sent to Maj.Gen. Pineda about how they as a Wing came to where they are now. I read all 14 pages and I found myself agreeing to many of the things they have done, the only thing they didn't do was go far enough on the OTS, it should have been a year and the standards for membership should have been tightened somehow, although I doubt they could have done anything more and still keep within CAP policy.....although I suspect the OTS requirement they have probably kept some people from going thru with it..so in a sense it acts like a gatekeeper for now.

  I really liked what he had to say about the term "volunteer" I personally don't like that term either and for the same reasons...it does carry a bad misconception, it's almost always perceived negatively. a better term is the one Iowa uses: "A professional who donates their time, talent and treasure for their communities". I am glad they dropped the term volunteer, I think national needs to address that now and stop placing so much emphasis on that term. We need to make sure we are not shooting ourselves in the foot with using terminology that carry a negative connotation to them; IE: Senior Member or Volunteer.

  The thing I'm really loving about Iowa was that they now have the same job protections as the National Guard, if we could get that same level of protection just as Iowa has it things would be sooo much better and that one benefit alone would work wonders with legitimizing CAP in others perceptions. it can be very hard if not impossible for members to get off work to perform a mission either State level or Air Force assigned Federal level. a law that mandates employers to give time off for CAP missions and then to Pay that Officer if they work for a Governmental entity, otherwise the leave is without pay for private employers is something we all need if we are going to trully do what National wants us to do.."Performing missions for America". Also none of the leave the employers have to give can be charged against the employees sick, personal or vacation time. What a great thing, I really wish Texas had that statute. I really wish we had it Nation wide.

  I would love to see CAP work real hard to get the whole organization at the level that Iowa is at now, and then work together to make it even better.

[RiverAux]

The law varies quite a bit from state to state on SDFs,

They ALL say that SDFs are members of the state's organized milita just like the Army and Air National Guard.  They do not function like CAP.  When they are on duty they have to follow orders or face potential criminal penalties under their state's military code. 

CAP members may be acting for the military but we ARE NOT a federal MILITARY organization, we are civilians.

That being said I fully believe that SDFs, CAP, and the CG Aux face many of the same problems and could learn quite a bit from each other if there was actually any degree of coordination between them, which for the most part, isn't the case.   

Regarding time off for CAP work -- Iowa isn't the first to have that protection though there aren't very many states like that and they differ in how it works. 

[DNall]

I'm sorry I've been a bit deficient on this conversation. I got busy and forgot about it, but this topic is top priority for me, as most of you know. Plus, I hin it's an excellent conversation to have just cause it makes us better individually as officers. I'll try to get back to teh main focus tmrw, but let me grab river's sub-conversation right quick...

River, "state's organized malitia" is a LEGALLY meaningless term. The national guard is the legal milita as defined by the constititution & nothing else has legal authority. I know it seems like you can debate teh subject, and yes the states do have authority to define the terms for themselves, but that's not how it works. If you recall your history - the civil war for instance, states would commission a prominat citizen colonel & allow him to raise a regiment in the state's name. Those regiments would then be certified by the state & the central govt could "recognize" them & accept them to service or not. National guard officers who attend state OCS recieve state commissions, then if called to federal service or after six months they are granted federal recognition and commissioned in the Army. SDF officers do not get state commissions. They are LEGALLY civiliains in every way shape & form. The extent to which they are able to execute law enforcement powers while on state active duty falls under the provisions for duly appointed officer (TAG) to deputize individuals (for instance in the case of a posse - limited scope of orders, short-term). Legally speaking, they are exactly the same as CAP. When they are on state active duty under the command of TAG, and when CAP members are on an AFAM under the direction of AF personnel, both are by international law considered to be members of the military. The CGAux is the same deal. The legal distinctions are minor & really can be written up to interpretation & attitude more than force of law.

Not that it matters!!! The point is meeting something like their standards so we can make some sense of this screwed up thing we have here, and then to push forward into the AF mission so we can help with things that matter (and justify our existance & budget). Plus we don't have a lot of choice because the professional standards of the AF have improved since 1947, and now with NIMS since 2001 the standards of the emergency response community have made us obselete unless we're willing to step up. What a fully certified top notch professional volunteer firefighter is to his paid counterpart, we have to become that to AF personnel. This conversation is about how to do that. What makes sense, what should it look like to integrate with them, what do we have to do to be viewed as peers so we'll in turn get missions as peers (within statutory limits) - that would be my goal for CAP.