Adding Requirements to Promotions

[lordmonar]

But requiring a tech rateing ....is adding a new requirement that is not needed in eitehr 3-1 or 3-4.

Which is plainly forbidden in para 1-1

Granted Former 4 Star General Newguy thinks he can walk in do a crappy job on his level I, is always getting remined to do his safety and never wears his uniform properly......does not get a promotion.

But lets face it.  We don't require anyone to do above and beyond what they "have to" to get promoted.   Otherwise we would not have all those purely CAP Lt Cols holding down Snack-O Jobs or just flying once or twice a year.

So.....I don't understand the push to make former officers to prove their dedication to CAP.

[SARDOC]

But requiring a tech rateing ....is adding a new requirement that is not needed in eitehr 3-1 or 3-4.

Which is plainly forbidden in para 1-1

Granted Former 4 Star General Newguy thinks he can walk in do a crappy job on his level I, is always getting remined to do his safety and never wears his uniform properly......does not get a promotion.

But lets face it.  We don't require anyone to do above and beyond what they "have to" to get promoted.   Otherwise we would not have all those purely CAP Lt Cols holding down Snack-O Jobs or just flying once or twice a year.

So.....I don't understand the push to make former officers to prove their dedication to CAP.

I understand the point of contention.   However, the Reg does say they have to perform in an "Exemplary Manner" not "meet minimum requirements" making this a subjective issue for the approving authority.  If we have a member here that shows up to every meeting for three years but doesn't even put forth the effort to get technician rated in anything but expects to be promoted to LtCol... is that exemplary? It's not like we are saying they have to meet the Professional development level for their requested grade.  Just asking that they get level one as required and a technician rating so that they have an identifiable objective and we manage expectations.  In the process they familiarize themselves with the PD program while helping the Squadron meet our needs and objectives.  If they can do this in an exemplary manner it gives us something tangible to evaluate.

[lordmonar]

Well....then you have answered your own question.

Getting a tech rateing is no exemplary....it is expected..so getting your tech rateing is no big deal and not deserving of promotion......so it becomes a circular argument.

If we are going to allow any advanced promotions.....then we have to establish the rules and follow them.  We can't let sub units make up their own rules.  If your Group CC thinks this is imporatant....then all he has to do is convince his wing commander or his region commander and get the reg changed.  BUT HE CAN'T Just do it himself.

Even if you have all the good intentions in the world.....a) you open yourself up for an IG (justified) complaint.  b) You are subverting the aims of the program (enticing former and current officers to joing)  c) you are violating para 1-1.

[Short Field]

So some members enter tracks that get them to Tech in 4 months or less (Aerospace Education, Communications) and others enter tracks that take 12 months (Public Affairs, Emergency Services, DDR, and Safety), some earn Tech between (Cadet Programs - 9 months) and some earn Tech at 6 months. 

Do you limit them to specific specialty tracks or penalize the ones who are in tracks that take longer than six months?   

[RiverAux]

That is one of the things I hate about some CAP regulations -- put in a clause that lets the commander have some discretion in how they implement something, but then give the commander absolutely no guidance on how to use that discretion. 

[SARDOC]

Getting a tech rateing is no exemplary....it is expected..so getting your tech rateing is no big deal and not deserving of promotion......so it becomes a circular argument.

I agree that getting the tech rating in itself is not exemplary but if you noticed earlier what I said that this is the benchmark at which they can make the request.  Because how can you evaluate performance evenly and fairly if you are constantly evaluating something different.  The thinking is that if they are performing in an exemplary manner for a given period of time you should at a minimum complete a technician rating in something...at which point they can ask to be considered for advancement.  This is explained to them from the very beginning and we manage the expectations. Everybody understands and there has never been a complaint.

  If they can do this in an exemplary manner it gives us something tangible to evaluate.

[ZigZag911]

When I was group CC, the criterion I used was simple: did the "special appointment" officer serve in a role related to that appointment?

The individual could and often was involved in other activities at unit, group or wing level -- as long as he or she did the 'job signed on for', we processed promotions by that section of the regulation.

If, however, a teacher (for instance) no longer chose to serve as an AE, then the expectation was that the individual would follow 'duty performance' requirements for promotion.

Some griping ensued, but wing and higher HQs always supported my interpretation.

[SARDOC]

When I was group CC, the criterion I used was simple: did the "special appointment" officer serve in a role related to that appointment?

The individual could and often was involved in other activities at unit, group or wing level -- as long as he or she did the 'job signed on for', we processed promotions by that section of the regulation.

If, however, a teacher (for instance) no longer chose to serve as an AE, then the expectation was that the individual would follow 'duty performance' requirements for promotion.

Some griping ensued, but wing and higher HQs always supported my interpretation.

I think you might be confusing "Special Appointments" with "Professional Appointments"  The Professional appointments are related to their civilian occupation when they put it to use for the Civil Air Patrol. ie Teachers, lawyers, health services, accountants.  I believe you are correct when they are not working in the eligible CAP specialty for that profession then they are not eligible for advanced promotions under the policy and when in order to be advanced they must do it under the duty performance section or other qualifying special promotion.

[ZigZag911]

You are right, I meant "Professional Appointments" and also "Mission Related Skills" -- it's wonderful if you're a CFII or CFI, but if you are not putting it to service of CAP (working with glider or flight encampment, serving as a DO, DOV, check pilot, instructor pilot), then, in my view, you don't need railroad tracks...and are not really entitled to them.

[lordmonar]

I agree.

But in the case of former military officers.........they have already earned the rank.  If you doubt their abilities or committment to CAP by all means don't appoint them...but the arbitrary requirement for them to get their tech rateing is assinine.