Time in Grade

[Grumpy]

I have a member who just converted from Sponsor Member to Active Member.  While he was a Sponsor he completed all requirements for completing Level I.  (Level I completition documented in e-services).  My question is, since he completed that training as a sponsor, can I apply that TIG toward his promotion to 2nd Lt?  (3 mos as Sponsor Member + 3 mos as Active Member = 6 mos TIG). 

35-5 doesn't mention any situation like this.

[tsrup]

The time in grade requirement states that he needs 6 months "Time in Grade" as a "SM" (aka SMWOG, in this case Sponsor member =/= Senior Member)



since that grade is not afforded to sponsor members, then the answer would be no.

[Grumpy]

I figured that would be the case and I knew it in my heart.  He's been with the squadron a year now and he's been as active, if not more so, than some of the members who have rank.  Just trying to find a way to do something nice for him.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[SARDOC]

You might want to check with your wing professional development officer because I know in my Wing they give you credit for that time and as soon as national changes them over they would be eligible for 2d Lt.

[MSG Mac]

They go by the join date in E-services. Try using the online promotion application, it should go through.

[Eclipse]

One of several reasons I generally recommend against people joining as CSMs.

[lordmonar]

I'd call NHQ.

[EMT-83]

You might want to check with your wing professional development officer because I know in my Wing they give you credit for that time and as soon as national changes them over they would be eligible for 2d Lt.

Your Wing PDO doesn't really have the authority to make this decision. There is a gap in the regulations where NHQ is going have to make the call.

[spacecommand]

How do CSMs show up in e-services?  RANK: SM / Status: CSM ?

[Grumpy]

They go by the join date in E-services. Try using the online promotion application, it should go through.

I tried it and it worked.  Thanks

[flyboy53]

Check e-services and see what's listed for time-in-grade.

I had an AEM once who transitioned to SM status. His official rank on his ID card was SM and his time in grade was set to when he first joined CAP in that status, so in this case the time as a AEM counted.

[Grumpy]

Check e-services and see what's listed for time-in-grade.

I had an AEM once who transitioned to SM status. His official rank on his ID card was SM and his time in grade was set to when he first joined CAP in that status, so in this case the time as a AEM counted.

At your suggestion, I ck'd it out.  E-services has him joining on 8 Oct 09 and a DOR as 19 Oct 10.  So they counted his membership as a Sponsor toward his TIG. 

I figure it's fare, he had to take all the courses and complete Level I.  He couldn't hold a staff position but he was there supervising (with senior members) at cadet activities and helping with labor and such.

[RiverAux]

While it appears that either NHQ doesn't care or doensn't notice the difference in this case, I see no reason why CSM time should count as TIG since they actually do not have a grade as they are not actually senior members.  More than likely its something NHQ hasn't ever thought about. 

[tsrup]

While it appears that either NHQ doesn't care or doensn't notice the difference in this case, I see no reason why CSM time should count as TIG since they actually do not have a grade as they are not actually senior members.  More than likely its something NHQ hasn't ever thought about.

agreed.

The idea behind time in grade is that you have built up some experience appropriate to that rank, and lets face it, a sponsor member's experience is NOT the same as what a SMWOG is.  If it is, then someone is improperly tasking their CSMs. 

Same with anyone who transfers to patron status when they're at any other rank.

I would call this current situation with eServices a glitch and nothing more.  The way I saw and interpreted the reg, CSM does not count toward your time in grade. 

after all I can go into eServices and make my whole squadron GTL qualified if I so chose, it does not mean that they meet the requirements.

[AirAux]

So your Wing ES Officer doesn't have to approve your GTL'S??  How would you sign them off without Mission numbers??

[RiverAux]

Check your 60-3.  Don't necessarily need to be real "missions" anymore (They even put quotes around the word mission in the reg).  Don't even need to be AFAMs, either practice or actual. 

[MSG Mac]

While it appears that either NHQ doesn't care or doensn't notice the difference in this case, I see no reason why CSM time should count as TIG since they actually do not have a grade as they are not actually senior members.  More than likely its something NHQ hasn't ever thought about.

The criteria is completion of Level I and 6 months. National is already aware of the situation. If you feel that the individual is not ready for a higher grade. Don't initiate the promotion. But be prepared to explain to the member that you don'tcondiser his activities as worthy of promotion, because you paid more dues than he did.

[Eclipse]

Check your 60-3.  Don't necessarily need to be real "missions" anymore (They even put quotes around the word mission in the reg).  Don't even need to be AFAMs, either practice or actual.

Agree - this is going to be a big paradigm shift only reluctantly accepted in many wings.

[RiverAux]

But be prepared to explain to the member that you don'tcondiser his activities as worthy of promotion, because you paid more dues than he did.

No, it is because it has nothing to do with their dues.  It is the fact that they are not a CAP senior member and therefore cannot have served the minimum 6 months as a CAP senior member required for promotion to 2nd Lt. in CAPR 35-5 2-1(b). 

If they want to make time spent in one of the other CAP membership categories equivalent to senior member time, then it needs to be in the regulation. 

I guess we've discovered yet another reason that we need to assign an actual real grade to new CAP adult members rather than using the generic "senior member". 

[a2capt]

The person has been a member for 12 months, attended nearly every meeting. I can count on less than a full hand, how many times he's missed but more than made up for it with our weekend and weekday outings as well as helped out with O-Flights on numerous occasions, and has been one of the first to do any training, online whatevers that they send out and say "everyone needs to do this"

So in effect, he's got 12 months as CSM vs. the 6 as SMWOG before getting that 2nd Lt. bar. The requirements for both in that first few months are not any different.

Jumping ahead a rank or two, I can see the nit picking. I sorely doubt that NHQ has *not* thought of this scenario, and all in all, I don't think anyone's being cheated one single bit, or byte.

[Eclipse]

You cannot change the fact that he was a CSM during that time, period. 

The clock starts when he accepts full membership, that's the program.  A loophole in the database system doesn't change that.
He accepted less cost, requirements, and responsibility during the time he was a CSM.  If he was performing real staff work in that status,
that is a failing of the CC and the member for misunderstanding.

Amazing what becomes "trivial" when the time comes that it is an issue.

[RiverAux]

Not saying that they haven't been an outstanding CSM.  They seem to be doing exactly what that membership category is there for. 

[tsrup]

So your Wing ES Officer doesn't have to approve your GTL'S??  How would you sign them off without Mission numbers??

It was just an example of "just because you can push it through eServices, doesn't mean it coincides with the regs" kind of thing.

[a2capt]

Well, a question submitted to the knowledge base staff:

If the (members) initial year of membership is as a CSM, is any of that time when coupled with the other requirements that were completed initially, such as Level I, Safety, CPPT, etc., transferable for a promotion to 2Lt. immediately after transferring from CSM to Active Member? (on the basis that the normal requirement fro 2Lt. is Complete Level I and 6 months time in no grade)

..and the answer I got back:

Since Cadet Sponsor Members must complete Level I, the time served as a sponsor member can be counted toward the six months in CAP requirement for promotion to 2d Lt.  The unit commander would be the one to make the decision but it can be done.

Time served.. makes it sound like a sentence. So, basically, thats the only period of membership service where the pre-requisites are the same. But the responsibilities and duties that can be performed vary, of course.

[RiverAux]

It would be nice if that knowledgebase answer was actually reflected in the regulations. 

[SarDragon]

It would be nice if that knowledgebase answer was actually reflected in the regulations.

Maybe no one thought about that situation when the reg was written. How often does it come up?

[Eclipse]

It would be nice if that knowledgebase answer was actually reflected in the regulations.

Maybe no one thought about that situation when the reg was written. How often does it come up?

About as often as issues involving military NCO grade - once every 5 years in the wet world and weekly here...

[Grumpy]

Here is a quote from CAPR 35-5, para 4-3 relating to pilots:

"INITIAL GRADES  Members in this category will be enrolled initially as senior members without grade.  However, immediately upon completiion of Level I, the unit commander may recommend the member for appointment to a grade commensurate with his or her special skill, as outlined in Figure 6."

Private Pilot              2nd Lt.

What is the difference between promoting a private pilot to 2nd Lt and a CSM who has already been in CAP a full year and completed Level I to 2nd LT?

I'll tell you.  The CSM has more time in CAP than the pilot.

[Eclipse]

This is an Apple:

This is an Orange:

Both are tasty, however comparing the two is foolish.

[RiverAux]

I'll tell you.  The CSM has more time in CAP than the pilot.

And you'll find many on CAPTalk who think it is a bad idea to give advanced rank to that pilot as well. 

Make the reg say that you can count CSM time and I'll be okay with it.  Whether or not it is a good idea to do so is a separate issue, but it is indisputably a violation of our regulations to do it now no matter what the knowledgebase says. 

[JeffDG]

This is an Apple:

This is an Orange:

Both are tasty, however comparing the two is foolish.

Here ya go:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

[Eclipse]

^Nice!

[tsrup]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperone.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

[lordmonar]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperone.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Actually CSM's can do more then chaperone.....and according to KB.....their time does count.

[tsrup]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperone.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Actually CSM's can do more then chaperone.....and according to KB.....their time does count.

I thought 35-5 was the regulating authority for promotions?

and it is pretty clear

Promotion To   Minimum Skill       Time-In-Grade
2d Lt                    Level I             6 months as senior member

Notice it says "as senior member" not "as a senior member"

[Grumpy]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperon.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Ah yes, here we go again with the ol' "Pilots are more important because they can be a pilot" argument.  The fact that you're making the CSM take all the training that a senior member is required to take but they are "nothing more than a chaperon" sounds a little unfair to me.  If you can't use them except as a chaperon why make them take Intro to CAP Safety, foundations (which has six modules), OPSEC, Equal Opportunities?  Have them take CPPT and be done with it.  You say I'm comparing apples and oranges.  No I'm not.  It's all the exact same training.  Not only that but one of our CSMs who just passed away from cancer was an AF Academy Graduate and flew fighters in the Air Force.  So don't tell me that a pilot is worth more than a non-pilot.

Regulations?  We're using CSMs exactly like the regs dictate.  At encampments, they're taking a load off the TACs by driving vans and shuffling cadet Johnny Jump-up around to different classes.

[Eclipse]

Irrelevant.

The status is the status - CSM has a specific role, and most of the CSM's I have met went that status because they "couldn't be bothered" about minor things like uniforms, Professional Development, etc.  They don't want to actually be "members", they want to "help", and if that help is any more than driving and chaperoning, i.e. they are doing the kind of staff work that would warrant grade credit, then they should not have been CSM's to start with.

They are not the same, if only because they chose not to make the same mental investment as regular members.

[tsrup]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperon.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Ah yes, here we go again with the ol' "Pilots are more important because they can be a pilot" argument.  The fact that you're making the CSM take all the training that a senior member is required to take but they are "nothing more than a chaperon" sounds a little unfair to me.  If you can't use them except as a chaperon why make them take Intro to CAP Safety, foundations (which has six modules), OPSEC, Equal Opportunities?  Have them take CPPT and be done with it.  You say I'm comparing apples and oranges.  No I'm not.  It's all the exact same training.  Not only that but one of our CSMs who just passed away from cancer was an AF Academy Graduate and flew fighters in the Air Force.  So don't tell me that a pilot is worth more than a non-pilot.

Regulations?  We're using CSMs exactly like the regs dictate.  At encampments, they're taking a load off the TACs by driving vans and shuffling cadet Johnny Jump-up around to different classes.

Okay, Two pilots join up,

one joins as a CSM, the other joins as a SM. 

The CSM can be bus driver and chaperone and is at no time a part of the chain of command, cadet's or seniors (though its the duty of anyone to make sure that things are conducted safely).  The SM is assigned a specialty track, can fill myriad of squadron staff positions, and is for the most part unrestricted.  With that added responsibility, the SM will be held accountable for all that is assigned to him/her. 
Since a CSM's responsibility is restricted, so is their accountability. 

Clear as mud?

When you fill out your CAPF 12 and want to join as a SM you are signing up for all three missions of CAP.

When you sign up as a CSM you are not.  Plain and simple.



I only addressed the pilot issue because it was asked "why they get advanced grade", comparing mission related skill promotions with duty performance promotions are apples and oranges, and is quite frankly a straw man argument.   The only thing the two have in common is that they are not mandatory and the members receiving them are not entitled to them.

Just like the SM with 6 months time in grade would not receive my recommendation for promotion if all he did at the squadron was drive the bus and be an extra head around so we could meet the supervision requirements for the cadets. 


Not to say that a CSM is not a valuable resource as is any person who wants to volunteer, but for some reason they opted out of a lot of CAP when they joined up as a sponsor and that is just the way it is.  Kudos to anyone who wants to do it, and then ultimately become a SM but remember that your time prior doesn't mean anything now and your are joining a new ball game. 

[tsrup]

I figured that would be the case and I knew it in my heart.  He's been with the squadron a year now and he's been as active, if not more so, than some of the members who have rank.  Just trying to find a way to do something nice for him.

Thanks for the confirmation.

OP, if you really feel like this person deserves promotion I recommend you read
35-5  Section C, 3-10.

This is the way to do it that's in line with the regs, and if this person really is deserving this will get them their promotion.

[Grumpy]

OK, right now a SM signs up and goes through Level I training.  That time he puts into the training counts towards his TIG whether it takes 1 wk or 6 mos.  If he takes 6 mos to complete the training he can be promoted right away.

It is mandatory for a CSM to take all the same training but their TIG doesn't count when they gp active.  What do we do, start his time from zero and make him take the training again? 

Why not simply say, "OK Mr/Ms CSM if you choose not to be an Active Member at this time, your Time-in-grade will not count should you decide to change your status at a later date.  However, you still must complete CPPT training before you do anything with cadets.  You will still be given credit for the CPPT training should you change your status at a later date".

That way you don't have them jumping through the hoops an active member has to.  Heck, I've even been directed by "higher command" to have them receive the A/C Ground briefing because they have a CAP ID and might come into contact with aircraft while performing as a chaperone.

Have I got you beating your head against a wall yet?

[tsrup]

the training is irrelevant in this issue.

The issue is whether the member has had the experience being responsible and accountable for equipment, duty assignments, the whole nine yards.  Not to mention that while a CSM has no specialty track, the SM theoretically has been working on one for 6 months now with a duty position. 

That is the main difference.

We can argue the spirit of the reg untill we are blue in the face, but the reg is what it is. 

Duty performance promotions are for just that, performance of a duty position, which CSM's are expressly forbidden in 39-2.  Not to mention 35-5 is pretty clear on the subject.


If you feel there are extenuating circumstances, I have provided the appropriate section of 35-5 in a previous post for your convenience.


edit:  And I also see no logical reason for a CSM to come near an aircraft, but if circumstances manifested themselves as such, then I would require them to take aircraft ground handling as well.  If not just for their own protection.

double edit: 39-2 says that CSMs can be passengers in CAP aircraft.  further reason why aircraft ground handling training for them isn't that bad of an idea.  wouldn't make it mandatory for all, just those who are going to be near or on our aircraft.

[lordmonar]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperone.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Actually CSM's can do more then chaperone.....and according to KB.....their time does count.

I thought 35-5 was the regulating authority for promotions?

and it is pretty clear

Promotion To   Minimum Skill       Time-In-Grade
2d Lt                    Level I             6 months as senior member

Notice it says "as senior member" not "as a senior member"

CSMs....are Senior Members.

[tsrup]

Simple, the pilot has the ability to be used as a pilot, or can hold a command staff position.

And mostly the advanced grade is an incentive to get people we can use into our program.

However, a CSM is nothing more than a chaperone.  Therefore there time prior does not entitle them to advanced grade. Using them as anything more is a violation of regulations.

Actually CSM's can do more then chaperone.....and according to KB.....their time does count.

I thought 35-5 was the regulating authority for promotions?

and it is pretty clear

Promotion To   Minimum Skill       Time-In-Grade
2d Lt                    Level I             6 months as senior member

Notice it says "as senior member" not "as a senior member"

CSMs....are Senior Members.

true, but the reg says "6 months as senior member" i.e. the Grade SM

if it were otherwise the wording would be "6 months as a senior member"

[lordmonar]

the training is irrelevant in this issue.

The issue is whether the member has had the experience being responsible and accountable for equipment, duty assignments, the whole nine yards.  Not to mention that while a CSM has no specialty track, the SM theoretically has been working on one for 6 months now with a duty position.

That is an assumption that is NOT supported by regulations.

That is the main difference.

We can argue the spirit of the reg untill we are blue in the face, but the reg is what it is. 

Duty performance promotions are for just that, performance of a duty position, which CSM's are expressly forbidden in 39-2.  Not to mention 35-5 is pretty clear on the subject.


If you feel there are extenuating circumstances, I have provided the appropriate section of 35-5 in a previous post for your convenience.


edit:  And I also see no logical reason for a CSM to come near an aircraft, but if circumstances manifested themselves as such, then I would require them to take aircraft ground handling as well.  If not just for their own protection.

I don't quite understand what the controversy is.

The question was.....does a members CSM time count for TIG after they transfer to regular membership.  The regs are not clear....and national through KB has said yes. 

[lordmonar]

true, but the reg says "6 months as senior member" i.e. the Grade SM

if it were otherwise the wording would be "6 months as a senior member"

CSM's have the same grade as any regular Senior Member when the first join.....SMWOG.  Again.....I don't see what the problem really is.

[ßτε]

CSMs....are Senior Members.

No, they are not. They are a separate membership category. See CAPR 39-2.
Chapter 3 describes the Senior Member category.
Chapter 5 describes the CSM category.

[a2capt]

..and as I've noted, this is a segment where the requirements are identical to advance in the program and function in any capacity.  Level I must be completed.

At the end of Level I, an "Active Member" would be eligible for a promotion, a "Sponsor Member" would .. continue to sponsor. 

That same "Active Member" has to do nothing more than show an interest, and could function in exactly the same role boundaries that a "Sponsor Member" did during that period and be promoted.

But if the "Sponsor Member" decides, you know what? I do want to do more here, I want to participate in the professional development and benefit from more than just what I've done so far..

Perhaps thats the way it is, adults are "Senior Members" with "Active", "Sponsor" or "Patron" status. But the reg-hounds are gonna say "thats not what the regulation says.." this is all about the initial 6 month/level I qualification only, this isn't anything to do with sneaking up to Capt. or further.

[tsrup]

That same "Active Member" has to do nothing more than show an interest, and could function in exactly the same role boundaries that a "Sponsor Member" did during that period and be promoted.

which would violate 35-5

2-1. Eligibility Requirements.
a.   General Requirements. To be considered for this type promotion, the member must: (1)   Be at least 21 years of age. (2)   Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent). (3)   Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
(5)   Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.

Not only is a "check in the box" promotion system frowned upon, but it is also against regulations.

[Grumpy]

The issue is whether the member has had the experience being responsible and accountable for equipment, duty assignments, the whole nine yards.  Not to mention that while a CSM has no specialty track, the SM theoretically has been working on one for 6 months now with a duty position. 

The way I understand 50-17, you don't enter into a specialty track until AFTER you finish Level I and enter into Level II.
I could be wrong though.

[caphornbuckle]

I think we're looking WAY too deep into what is going on.

The question was asked and answered by Civil Air Patrol.  That's what the KB is there for (yes, I've seen them wrong sometimes too, but it is a reference that can be used if something is in question).  To answer questions that are not 100% clear in the regs (IMHO I'm still not convinced this situation is clear in the regs).

This is in no offense to the "Butter Bars" out there but it IS only Second Lieutenant.  If it was for Captain or above, I would have grave concerns but it isn't.

I agree that NHQ should look into this type of situation and determine if it is a suitable enough of an issue to bring in a change in regulations to clarify what is appropriate.

Until then, the Squadron Commander is the approving authority and if they feel it is appropriate to promote a former CSM once they become a SM with all the requirements met, I wouldn't see a problem with allowing them to promote to 2nd Lt (again IMHO).

[tsrup]

The issue is whether the member has had the experience being responsible and accountable for equipment, duty assignments, the whole nine yards.  Not to mention that while a CSM has no specialty track, the SM theoretically has been working on one for 6 months now with a duty position. 

The way I understand 50-17, you don't enter into a specialty track until AFTER you finish Level I and enter into Level II.
I could be wrong though.

AFIK you need level 1 to complete your technician rating, but as for enrolling in it no.

The table at the bottom of 50-17 even has selecting a specialty track as part of even completing level 1.

[Grumpy]

the training is irrelevant in this issue.

The issue is whether the member has had the experience being responsible and accountable for equipment, duty assignments, the whole nine yards.  Not to mention that while a CSM has no specialty track, the SM theoretically has been working on one for 6 months now with a duty position.  That is the main difference.

We can argue the spirit of the reg untill we are blue in the face, but the reg is what it is. 

Duty performance promotions are for just that, performance of a duty position, which CSM's are expressly forbidden in 39-2.  Not to mention 35-5 is pretty clear on the subject.


If you feel there are extenuating circumstances, I have provided the appropriate section of 35-5 in a previous post for your convenience.


edit:  And I also see no logical reason for a CSM to come near an aircraft, but if circumstances manifested themselves as such, then I would require them to take aircraft ground handling as well.  If not just for their own protection.

double edit: 39-2 says that CSMs can be passengers in CAP aircraft.  further reason why aircraft ground handling training for them isn't that bad of an idea.  wouldn't make it mandatory for all, just those who are going to be near or on our aircraft.

I took a look at 50-17.  In Chap. 3, para 3-1 it states, "CAP requires members to complete Level I training PRIOR to receiving any assigned duty position in the unit, directly supervising cadets on their own, being allowed to wear the Air Force-style CAP uniform, becoming eligible for promotion or enrolling in AU A4/6 courses".

So your statement about about a senior member having already worked in a duty position going on 6 months confuses me.

[jimmydeanno]

^Theoretically, the new SM could complete level one in a few hours after joining.  So on day 2 of membership they could be assigned to a duty position.

[Eclipse]

^Theoretically, the new SM could complete level one in a few hours after joining.  So on day 2 of membership they could be assigned to a duty position.

They can't be appointed to anything until their background check clears.

[ßτε]

^Theoretically, the new SM could complete level one in a few hours after joining.  So on day 2 of membership they could be assigned to a duty position.

They can't be appointed to anything until their background check clears.

I'm trying to find where in the regulations that is located.
Do you have a reference?

[Eclipse]

A commander can't record the completion of Level 1 until the member is an active, approved member.

[ßτε]

A commander can't record the completion of Level 1 until the member is an active, approved member.

This is not true. On more than one occasion we have had members credited with Level I before the member is in approved status.

[tsrup]

A commander can't record the completion of Level 1 until the member is an active, approved member.

This is not true. On more than one occasion we have had members credited with Level I before the member is in approved status.

I finished my level one within hours of showing up in eServices

[lordmonar]

^Theoretically, the new SM could complete level one in a few hours after joining.  So on day 2 of membership they could be assigned to a duty position.

They can't be appointed to anything until their background check clears.

Not true......they can't be left alone with cadets until they get their permanant cards....but once they have a CAP ID number they can be assigned to just about any duty.

[lordmonar]

A commander can't record the completion of Level 1 until the member is an active, approved member.

Commander's cant record anyone's completion of Level 1.  That can only be done at wing.  All they need to have is a CAP ID so that they can log onto EServices.

[SarDragon]

A commander can't record the completion of Level 1 until the member is an active, approved member.

Commander's cant record anyone's completion of Level 1.  That can only be done at wing.  All they need to have is a CAP ID so that they can log onto EServices.

Actually, the final completion is recorded at NHQ, when they get the Form 11 directly from the squadron commander. Wing has nothing to do with it.

[tsrup]

......they can't be left alone with cadets until they get their permanant cards....

Can you cite that?

I don't see it mentioned in 35-1, is it somewhere else?

edit: never mind, found it it in 52-10

[EMT-83]

Actually, the final completion is recorded at NHQ, when they get the Form 11 directly from the squadron commander. Wing has nothing to do with it.

Actually, it's submitted by the Professional Development Officer.

Granted, if you have no PDO, it defaults to the commander...

[FlyTiger77]

Actually, the final completion is recorded at NHQ, when they get the Form 11 directly from the squadron commander. Wing has nothing to do with it.

Actually, it's submitted by the Professional Development Officer.

Granted, if you have no PDO, it defaults to the commander...

Arguably, it is submitted by the PDO on behalf of the commander.

[EMT-83]

Form 11 is the Senior Member Professional Development Director's Report, not the commander's report. The PDO submits it on his own behalf, not the commander's.

For some reason, there is a lot of confusion on PD forms and how (and where) to submit them.

[FlyTiger77]

Form 11 is the Senior Member Professional Development Director's Report, not the commander's report. The PDO submits it on his own behalf, not the commander's.

For some reason, there is a lot of confusion on PD forms and how (and where) to submit them.

I guess my point is that authority flows through command channels and staffs at all levels support their respective commanders. After all, the Director is appointed by a commander.

[Eclipse]

^ Correct, no one submits anything "on their own behalf", at least in regards to squadron business.

[EMT-83]

You're really picking at nits. Yes, I know, you delegate the task but not the responsibility.

If staff officers run every routine task through the commander, nothing would get done.

[FlyTiger77]

You're really picking at nits. Yes, I know, you delegate the task but not the responsibility.

If staff officers run every routine task through the commander, nothing would get done.

I disagree that it it nit picking in that oftentimes staff officers forget this fact.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the commander doesn't need to see each and every routine action conducted on his/her behalf.

[Eclipse]

I disagree it is a nit.  In fact, the failure to understand this key point of the theory of chain of command fails regularly not only
in CAP, but in business and the military all the time.

In CAP, this is especially true for new members who fall into jobs at echelons higher than a unit and start thinking that being the Wing "XX"
actually gives them authority over the Unit and group XX's to direct their operations, etc. (rinse, repeat).

From a practical standpoint, there isn't a unit in this country that is cycling so many members through Level 1 that their forms should be completely outside the attention of the CC.

[Grumpy]

That same "Active Member" has to do nothing more than show an interest, and could function in exactly the same role boundaries that a "Sponsor Member" did during that period and be promoted.

which would violate 35-5

2-1. Eligibility Requirements.
a.   General Requirements. To be considered for this type promotion, the member must: (1)   Be at least 21 years of age. (2)   Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent). (3)   Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
(5)   Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.

Not only is a "check in the box" promotion system frowned upon, but it is also against regulations.

No it's not.  Why do you think duty promotions are done through e-services?  The Air Force/CAP have been working at going paperless since the 80's

[tsrup]

That same "Active Member" has to do nothing more than show an interest, and could function in exactly the same role boundaries that a "Sponsor Member" did during that period and be promoted.

which would violate 35-5

2-1. Eligibility Requirements.
a.   General Requirements. To be considered for this type promotion, the member must: (1)   Be at least 21 years of age. (2)   Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent). (3)   Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program.
(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.
(5)   Be recommended by immediate superior and unit commander.

Not only is a "check in the box" promotion system frowned upon, but it is also against regulations.

No it's not.  Why do you think duty promotions are done through e-services?  The Air Force/CAP have been working at going paperless since the 80's

My statement had nothing to do with the actual "system" of eServices or whether it was paperless or not...

[arajca]

The process on Duty Performance promotions is run through Eservices, but the commander has the final say. If the commander checks the box, it's done. If they don't, it's not. It is then up to the commander to explain to the member why they did not get promoted.

If it was automatic, there would be no need for a commander approval check box.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The TIG system certainly has its quirks.

I remember years ago when I first joined CAP I was told that one time in a CAP member's career TIG could be waived if all the other requirements were met, and I think I remember one Major who was allowed to do that for LTC.  However, when I mention it now most of my CAP colleagues look at me like I'm crazy (not that there's any problem with that).

Of course, this was back in 1994, when I was a brand new second looie who had just slipped on his bloody awful berry boards, so ahhhdonnnknow....