Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 22, 2019, 09:14:23 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc  (Read 14808 times)
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,349

« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2007, 05:58:22 PM »

Too ES based.

If you're not into ES, you stop as SrA.

Mission Manager does not exist. Do you mean Incident Commander? If so, you'll have a bunch of low grade folks because CAP's requirements for IC are such that only a handful per wing would qualify.

"Mission Manager" is used as a catchall term for ICs, Ops & Planning Section Chiefs, AOBD/GBD, Finance-Admin Section Chiefs, Comm Unit Leader, Safety Officer, Mission IO, Flight Line Supervisor, Mission Chaplain....I think that about covers it.
You need to define it in your document.

Quote
The plan does not envision (or require) everyone being "into" ES, but does stress that all adult members  should have certain fundamental qualifications to enable them to assist in a broad-based disaster situation (terrorist attack aftermath, Katrina-type natural disaster).
I disagree. The plan does require it if a member wants to progress above SrA. Table 1 - Basic NCO & 101 qual. Flight Officers and Commissioned Officers also have the "and one 101 qualification" requirement in the notes.

Quote
Not everyone needs to be involved in ES all the time....but I would rather not have people as members who were unwilling (to the extent of their ability) to pitch in when really needed.
If you're not into ES all the time, your quals will lapse. What do you about the ES folks who don't want to do CP or AE? Or do you just discriminate against those who don't want to do ES?

On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.

Emergency Medical - Swap EMS 1st Responder and ARC 1st Aid/CPR/AED Instructor. 1st Responder is more applicable to CAP than the instructor. Drop ARC restriction and add nationally accepted certified, there are several different certifying agencies that can be used.

Health Services - Put BS level health professional at same level as RN and MS level at NP/PA

Educators - Licensed teachers and counselors came in at FO or TFO? The table allows for both.

Mission Related Skills/Professional Appointments - Need to have the member contribute their skills to CAP.

Here are some ideas I came up with:

* Civil Air Patrol Adult Member Commissioned Officer Grades 0326.doc (31.5 kB - downloaded 12 times.)
* Civil Air Patrol Adult Member Corporate Officer Grades.doc (23 kB - downloaded 11 times.)
* Civil Air Patrol Adult Member Enlisted Grades 0326.doc (27.5 kB - downloaded 13 times.)
* Civil Air Patrol Adult Member Warrant Officer Grades 0326.doc (29.5 kB - downloaded 13 times.)
« Last Edit: January 07, 2007, 06:05:19 PM by arajca » Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,349

« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2007, 06:03:03 PM »

More for my idea:

There are four more documents, however, they are too large (even zipped) to post here.

* Civil Air Patrol Adult Member Instructor.doc (22 kB - downloaded 6 times.)
* Attachment 3 Professional Promotion Table for Commissioned Officers.doc (38.5 kB - downloaded 7 times.)
* Attachment 4 Advanced Promotions for Warrant Officers.doc (54 kB - downloaded 6 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2007, 06:23:37 PM »

OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!

Dang, ZZ, you're tough!

I'd go with a bachelor degree as the basic qual for 2LT, assuming completion of a CAP OTS. 

Chaplain Don had a plan that was good, fair, and sounds simple to administer.  Pilots, former cadets with Mitchell and higher, and selected other technicians stay in the FO grades, unless they have degrees.  BS/BA and higher go to commissioned grade.

Unskilled volunteers without college stay in the enlisted grades.

But... Under your plan, would GES count as "One 101 qualification?"

And, why the additional rank for ATP?  CFI's and CFII's we can use.  ATP is just another pilot once he's out of his jet and flying a Skyhawk.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2007, 02:54:07 AM »

OK, folks, since we're talking grade structure, I am attaching a paper I wrote during the letter months of 2006....it expresses ideas I've been kicking around and developing with some CAP colleagues (including a retired USAFR officer and a retired USAR E-9) for about 5 years.

Some of the courses mentioned, particularly those for NCOs, do not exist and would need to be developed.

This is a starting place for discussion, not a perfect plan engraved in stone!

Dang, ZZ, you're tough!

I'd go with a bachelor degree as the basic qual for 2LT, assuming completion of a CAP OTS. 

Chaplain Don had a plan that was good, fair, and sounds simple to administer.  Pilots, former cadets with Mitchell and higher, and selected other technicians stay in the FO grades, unless they have degrees.  BS/BA and higher go to commissioned grade.

Unskilled volunteers without college stay in the enlisted grades.

But... Under your plan, would GES count as "One 101 qualification?"

And, why the additional rank for ATP?  CFI's and CFII's we can use.  ATP is just another pilot once he's out of his jet and flying a Skyhawk.

GES is NOT sufficient.....MSA/MRO/FLM/GTM/UDF 9to cite a few examples) would be.
I was thinking of the ATP as a resource person for training, safety instruction, and so forth.
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2007, 03:16:45 AM »



If you're not into ES all the time, your quals will lapse. What do you about the ES folks who don't want to do CP or AE? Or do you just discriminate against those who don't want to do ES?

On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.
 
[/quote]

I read through your documents, you have some interesting thoughts, many of which I feel are not that far from what I've proposed.

Some differences include your six (seven counting Warrant Trainee) WO grades; presently the active military only has five WO grades, not sure we need more.

As for ES, I want every CAP member in a leadership role to have some basic mission qualification.....I understand it might lapse from lack of use....but it is a lot easier to refresh/restore quals for which the training has already been accomplished than to start from scratch.

I understand that many, if not most, CAP members 'specialize' in one area....again, I feel that those who would exercise leadership roles need to have a familiarity with and some fundamental training in all three missions.....so in that regard, you are 100% correct, at some point in the promotion progression the Yeager AND the Training Leaders of Cadets Course ought to be required.

I anticipate many people "topping out" at Senior Airman under my proposal, in fact, that is part of the point....as things stand now, members get 1 Lt without too much trouble....the AFIADL CAP Officer course tends to be an obstacle for many....if part of the purpose is to ensure the training and commitment of CAP leaders, we need to make getting stripes/bars/leaves more demanding.

In fact, I would see SrA grade as veery much equivalent to the role you describe as CAP Instructor....I know some other cadet programs have that position....perhapos we need it....but for most of the jobs you describe, i feel those filling the posts should be in the chain of command.
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2007, 03:25:36 AM »


[/quote]



On to other comments:
Communications - 911 Dispatchers should come in a lot higher than amateur radio operators. Their training is more intense and more applicable to CAP's communication sytems than amatuer radio. I'd recommend at least FO, if not TFO.

Emergency Medical - Swap EMS 1st Responder and ARC 1st Aid/CPR/AED Instructor. 1st Responder is more applicable to CAP than the instructor. Drop ARC restriction and add nationally accepted certified, there are several different certifying agencies that can be used.

Health Services - Put BS level health professional at same level as RN and MS level at NP/PA

Educators - Licensed teachers and counselors came in at FO or TFO? The table allows for both.

Mission Related Skills/Professional Appointments - Need to have the member contribute their skills to CAP.

[/quote]

In 911 dispatchers -- OK, did not know level of training...certainly realized their responsibility

EMS 1st Responder & ARC Instructor -- open to discussion

BS level health professional -- much more limited potential contribution than NP/PA, can't see changing it

Teachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,349

« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2007, 05:10:55 AM »

In 911 dispatchers -- OK, did not know level of training...certainly realized their responsibility
Average six months, 40 hrs per week using computers (with hand and foot input devices), answering phones, dispatching, making status checks, tracking many pieces of equipment and personnel, EXTREMELY high stress level at times. They can handle as much traffic in 1/2 hour as a typical MRO does in two days on a SAREX.

Quote
EMS 1st Responder & ARC Instructor -- open to discussion

CAP does not require certified training, just first aid training. Just about any EMT, 1st Resp, etc can do it. Add to the mix the CAP Instructor Program being developed and the HSO/Instructor specialty.

Quote
BS level health professional -- much more limited potential contribution than NP/PA, can't see changing it
Given the restrictions on Health Services personnel, any HS Prof. with a BS can do as much as a RN, or MD for that matter. Depending on legal issues, that may or may not change. One avenue being looked into is having the AF assume medical liability for HSO performing their duties for CAP - ot sure how far it has gone or will go.

Quote
Teachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Again, these things need to be spelled out.

The top levels of each track (enlisted, WO, CO) are your experts/god-like beings. What they don't know about CAP isn't worth knowing. I know the CMWO is not a military grade, but I tried to keep the WO grades tied to PD levels and I needed one more for the WO track expert.
Report to moderator   Logged
flyguy06
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2007, 05:27:08 AM »

I think we should leave everythig as it is. You cant require someone to have a colleg edegree to be a CAP officer. A CAP officer is not the same as a commissioned officer. I know many good seniormembers that have hgh school diplomas and they do a good job as senior members. Its about dedication, not degrees.
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,502
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2007, 05:48:36 AM »

I would agree that a Bachelors degree would not be necessary. HOWEVER I feel that SOME college credits or post-HS education/technical training would be.   As for myself: I was AFROTC in college but the AF cancelled the medical waivers for everyone in my category. ( I had asthma as a kid) When that happened my scholarship went away and I had to leave school. When that happened I became involved in EMS.  And as far as speaking of Paramedics/EMTS/Dispatchers. I am both an EMT and a dispatcher. There is definately alot of work involved. (And if I work a day shift as an EMT and a night shift dispatching odds are I never sleep)  But within the realm of Comm duties, I can handle my dispatch board just fine. BUT I might be hard pressed to manage a radio at mission base if its one Im not familiar with. - All my dispatch duties/systems are controlled by computers. 

EMT vs Paramedic. I know medics have more training. But I run half again as many BLS calls AT LEAST as any ALS medic in my area.

I apoligize, I know it was a bit off topic.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2007, 02:21:16 AM »




Quote
Teachers/counselors:  less than 5 years experience OR bachelors only - FO
                                 5 + years experience AND masters = TFO
Again, these things need to be spelled out.
.
[/quote]

It was quite clear....take another look at the chart
Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,349

« Reply #50 on: January 09, 2007, 02:00:48 PM »

OKI. I stand corrected, although when I printed it out, I didn't see that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dragoon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 979

« Reply #51 on: January 09, 2007, 08:29:51 PM »

Posted at the request of John K.

One possible structural change could include the elimination of USAF grade in favor of a CAP grade system that would be formally recognized by USAF.

Justification - a huge amount of debate, both here, and at the National Board, goes in to "who deserves to hold what grade in CAP."  Only real military NCOs can hold NCO grade, but cannot be promoted.  Any member can hold officer grade, even if they were never real military officers.  Real military officers can keep their existing grade, but only through O-5.  CAP grades above that level are held for those who have successfully held certain CAP positions, regardless of the grade they held previously.

In addition, while CAP grade is virtually identical to USAF grade, it is not used in the same way.  USAF grade denotes pay, authority and responsibility.  CAP grade denotes longevity and training.  CAP members are not required to obey orders from those of higher grades.  CAP Officers of any grade may hold CAP command authority over CAP members of higher grade.  CAP officers have no responsibility as the "ranking officer present" to take charge of situations and correct problems.

USAF staff and command positions are coded by grade, and with some limited flexibility officers and NCOs are assigned according to their grade.  They are not normally assigned to positions far above or below their grade.  In CAP, this is a common occurrence.  People assume and relinquish responsibility and authority based on not only on ability, but how much they are willing to contribute at any point in time.  In fact the latest CAPR 20-1 doesn't even assign grades to positions except commanders, and even then allows anyone to serve in those positions.

The effects of these differences are far reaching.  CAP Grade looks like USAF grade, but isn't.  It is more like an award for attending certain classes.  As a result the quality of CAP officer varies greatly, some of whom bring great discredit upon the organization from outsiders who expect a certain level of professionalism from a CAP officer, when we can neither prepare nor train the officer to that standard given our limited time and resources.


Nevertheless, CAP grade is used to motivate members to participate and train.

Proposal:  Create a unique CAP grade system such as "Flight Officer", using distinctive grade insignia.  Get it formally approved by USAF and inserted in appropriate USAF publications.  Make it clear that this is an internal system for use in CAP, and that CAP members fall completely outside the USAF grade system.  A CAP flight officer is no more superior or subordinate to a USAF officer than a USAF civilian is.

Possible extensions of this proposal would be to work with USAF to allow this grade insignia, along with some distinctive CAP identification badge/patch, to be the only major differences between the USAF and CAP uniforms. (i.e. eliminate wing patches, non-subdued name tapes, etc).  Work with USAF to eliminate weight and grooming restrictions (within reason) in USAF uniforms, as it would be extremely clear that we were accelerates, and not military personnel.  (NOTE: The whole issue of being a "part time" auxiliary would have to be resolved in order for this part to occur.)

This effectively bring us closer in image to USAF, but clearly identified as different from the warfighters.  This eliminates the endless arguments about what grade to bestow on prior service members.  It eliminates the stigma of being "wannabee officers" and allows us to build a strong image based on our unique contribution to the USAF mission.  It gives us unique grade that is used in the unique CAP way - not to identify authority, but to identify longevity and training.


Possible Addendum:  Commissioned Grade could be kept for serving CAP leaders and staff officers.  Such grade would be temporary (as the National Deputy Commander's Brigadier General grade is).  Upon leaving the position, the member would revert to flight officer grade.  One possible implementation would be as follows:



Set up a 5 step "flight officer" (or perhaps warrant officer) program.  We'll call the grades FO-1 through FO-5.  Pick whatever titles make you happy.

These become your permanent grade.

Level of the Senior Member Program = your grade.  Finish Level 1 - you get FO-1.  Finish your Certificate of Proficiency (Level 2), get FO-2.  Etc. Etc.

Now, certain jobs in 20-1 would be coded for a maximum commissioned officer grade.  For example, Squadron CC's would max out as  majors, Deputy Squadron CC's and a few key staff officers as captains, with a smattering of 1st and 2nd Lt Billets.  Group and Wing get the Higher Grades.

Now here's where the magic occurs.  Commissioned grade is temporary, and is based on the the lower of:

1.  The max commissioned grade of the position you are serving in.

and

2. The level of the senior member program you've completed.


For example:

A relatively new member (FO-2) gets thrust into command of a squadron.  The position is coded for up to a major (0-4).  But he's only completed level 2.  So he only gets to wear 1st Lt bars (0-2).  If he completes Levels 3 and 4, he can now wear major's oak leaves (0-4).

If that same person, now a level 4 qualified  squadron commander wearing Major (O-4) oak leaves, decides he wants to step down and just be an observer for a while, with no staff job, he reverts to FO-4)

An FO-5 decides to take the Wing job of Stan/Eval, which is coded for a Major (0-4).  Even though he's a level 5 guy, the max of the slot is 0-4, so that's what he wears.  If he later takes over as the Chief of Operations (coded for an 0-5, he now is "promoted" to Lt Col)

When he goes back to a squadron to be an Aerospace Ed Officer (coded for an 0-2), he reverts to 1st Lt.




ONE CAVEAT - to keep folks from buying lots of mess dress shoulder boards, for social occasions (like Dinings-In) the member may wear the grade insignia of the highest grade ever worn, along with a pocket badge identifying the person as a "former officer' (sort of like what CGAUX does)

Advantages -

1.  This system rewards professional development for all members, even those not in any position. But it gives the best rewards to those who compete all training AND work in the tough jobs at the high levels.

2. It gives commanders a powerful accountability tool - if you don't do a good job, I replace you and you give back your cool rank.

3.  It limits commissioned rank to those currently serving as leaders and staff officers in the organization.


Disadvantages

1.  There would still be some grade inversion - if a Level 1 person was a squadron Commander, he could be a 2d Lt in charge of some Captains.  But there will be much less of this than there is today.

2.  Ego - some folks have a problem accepting a grade commensurate with their low level of contribution, and will want to keep the oak leaves that they've "earned" by completing some weekend courses that no one ever fails
Report to moderator   Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2007, 08:43:20 PM »

^ CGAux anyone?
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
Dragoon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 979

« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2007, 09:10:08 PM »

The temporary commisioned grade is a very CGAUX kind of thing.  But the FO part is uniquely CAP.

In CGAUX, last time I checked, you don't wear any grade when working with the CG. (so no one gets confused).  You just wear collar insignia identifying yourself as a generic auxiliarist.
Report to moderator   Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2007, 09:23:38 PM »

The temporary commisioned grade is a very CGAUX kind of thing.  But the FO part is uniquely CAP.

It's not always temporary... There is the Past Officer Device, so you can wear insignia that does not reflect your current office. The insignia is also very similar to the USCG insignia while still being distinctive... It's the titles that are different. 

In CGAUX, last time I checked, you don't wear any grade when working with the CG. (so no one gets confused).  You just wear collar insignia identifying yourself as a generic auxiliarist.

When afloat, yes... but not necessarily ashore, per AUXMAN.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2007, 10:47:16 PM »

I like Dragoon's basic plan, but I would not have any commissioned insignia.  A variant of the "Command Badge" that we use for squadrons and groups could be designed to add command of wings, regions and National.

Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2007, 11:55:39 PM »

There are all sorts of non-military organizations that use the US military enlisted and officer rank insignia system.  So long as the local volunteer fire dept is using it I don't see any reason why CAP shouldn't.
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2007, 01:52:01 AM »

There are all sorts of non-military organizations that use the US military enlisted and officer rank insignia system.  So long as the local volunteer fire dept is using it I don't see any reason why CAP shouldn't.

I don't think USAF is concerned about people mistaking a volunteer FD for them!
Report to moderator   Logged
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,632

« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2007, 04:35:00 PM »

CAP does not currently an officer program with the same "teeth" as an military officer, but I am proud of the rank I have reached. And I've made a point of legitimately meeting the requirements for each grade. So, yes, I dislike the idea of being "busted down".

That being said, if officer standards did increase, I would actually make it a goal to meet those requirements. I think that we need to upgrade our officer "accession" (and maybe we need to start calling it that, the military does). Granted I don't need to be taught to march, I think after 18 years in various uniforms, I would have that down. However, everything CAP specific I had to learn on my own. We need to get away from that self paced learning. OJT should be after initial training, not the initial training itself. CAP is testing an Instructor Program, lets put it to use. (http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5790&print=1)

Requiring ES qualifications for advancements otherwise automatically disqualifies those that aren't into ES, or can't do it. Who here wants to tell the guy in the wheelchair or the blind member that he can't get promoted because he can't or is uncomfortable with working at a mission base? Not to mention, someone may find it reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. And it would be a justifiable one in the end.

Restricting advanced grades based on positions is a troublesome concept. There will always be politics in this organization, just as any other, and it would kill many peoples chances of making those ranks. Also, returning people to lower grades after they hold the office is not the way to praise them for a job well done. And I don't care how much you try to sell the concept of a decoration, or "self satisfaction" as being sufficient, I won't buy it. And neither will a lot of others.

For officer training, we need to give people self confidence in the duties they will be performing. And that requires training. Period. We need to make better officers, not elitist figures based on positions.

As far as application to the current officer grades, there are really only two choices: grandfather existing ones, or freeze those in current grades until they meet the current requirements. For those who have topped out at LTCOL, they can be frozen at unit or group level only, no wing/region commands or staff positions. A grace period would have to be put into effect for the existing wing staff positions, but that would be the only exception.

Two more things: One, we are not the CG Aux, we are CAP. The  system they have may work for them(and it seems to work well), but it's their system. We need to find our own path.

Two, there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers. To be blunt, that's completely irrelevant. Anyone that sees you in the uniform is going to expect it of you. You may not like that idea, or try to argue it, but it is fact. You do a disservice to yourself and CAP by telling them that you don't, and that they shouldn't expect it of you.

I don't think we need 18 month OCS/OTS or four year academies, but we need a lot more than what we have. We aren't taken seriously by many of the military personnel that we are working alongside now. We need to earn their respect. Instead of revamping the entire grade structure, lets put "teeth" in what we already have.
Report to moderator   Logged
jayleswo
Forum Regular

Posts: 131
Unit: PCR-CA-001

« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2007, 05:22:35 PM »

Hawk,

Just a few observations in response to your post...

You said "there are also many that have stated that they didn't come in to meet the same requirements as military officers." Ok, that's fine. Join CAP and contribute your skills, but as an enlisted member. I agree, not everyone is going to have the time nor inclination to be an officer. As far as CAP is concerned, officers should be our leaders. The best way to avoid staying top heavy is to promote people to earned grades (enlisted and warrant/flight officer) based on training and skills. Then *temporarily* promote to an appropriate officer grade, if they meet training and any other requirements, when assigned as a unit commander or deputy. Even Dwight D Eisenhower was only a permanent Lt Col when he was given the temorary grade of General during WWII. There's precedent. Give former unit commanders some other bling to hang on the uniform for serving. They already get the Command Service Ribbon, is that not enough recognition? It is for me. I'd be ok with stepping back down into my permanent earned grade after serving as a unit commander.

This kinda changes the game for us. It makes the rewards (officer grade) not only commensurate with level of participation, skills and training but also responsibility. Up until the 1970's, CAPM 20-1 had officer grade allocation tables for units which stipulated maximum grades for each position held in the unit. Seniors still had to complete Level 1-5, but could not promote unless they were filling a billet appropriate for the officer grade they wanted to promote to. The officer grade allocation tables were done away with to improve retention and because people would simply "game" the system and step into a position with a higher maximum grade allocation to get promoted for the minimum time, then step down and keep the grade.

This would return us to that concept, albeit only for command positions, but make the officer grade temporary to avoid the "gamesmanship". So, instead of making officer grade the reward, let's come up with *other* ways of rewarding achievement and contribution.  Use of enlisted and warrant grades would allow us to still use promotions as a reward, but restrict officer grade to commanders. Would it not be just as rewarding to promote from Airman (E-1) to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) or Warrant Officer (WO-1) to Chief Warrant Officer (WO-5)? Do we all have to be Lt Col's?

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Report to moderator   Logged
John Aylesworth, Lt Col CAP
IC Coordinator, HQ CAWG
SAR/DR MP, Master Observer
Earhart #1139 FEB 1982
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Paper: Structural Change, etc
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 26 queries.