Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 16, 2019, 12:49:02 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 1949 Problems - CAP Uniforms, Grade and Saluting
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: 1949 Problems - CAP Uniforms, Grade and Saluting  (Read 17825 times)
sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,218

« on: October 29, 2014, 04:58:49 PM »

The following is excerpted from a 1978 transcript of an oral interview with Mr. Harold C. Stuart, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Civil Affairs from 1949 to 1951.  CAP came under his office. 
The USAF structure included at the time:
Chief of Staff - Gen Hoyt S. Vandenberg
Special Assistant for Reserve Affairs Section
Lt. Gen. Elwood R. Quesada - Special Assistant
Lt. Col. William L. Todd - Executive for Civil Air Patrol and Air Scouts

In reading the transcript "the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word."

In pages one through ten, Mr. Stuart discusses the Air Force Reserve and Guard and the issues they had between themselves and the fledgling active Air Force. Then he gets to this:

"We also had the Air ROTC and the Civil Air Patrol. We had problems with the Civil Air Patrol that was made up of non military people and generally those who had never served or did not serve on active duty in the Air Corps, but flew as civilians, flew with their own aircraft on submarine patrol, and search and rescue missions during the war and after the war.

The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel. And, they had uniforms identical to the Air Force uniforms. They would wear an insignia identical to the Air Force with a small blue patch that designated them as Civil Air Patrol. There is a great deal of resentment among the reservists and the Guard and the regular Air Force, those on active duty.

At various conventions or meetings, the heads of the Civil Air Patrol were commandeering military vehicles. The younger officers and enlisted personnel were saluting and taking some direction not knowing they were Civil Air Patrol. They had a political impact. They were organized virtually in every state and insisted on keeping the Air Force rank and uniforms.

I endeavored to change their insignia or their rank such as using the strips on the arm as is done in many foreign countries as designating their rank or maybe referring to them as the Canadians or rank that the Canadians or the British had when the air forces are distinguished from the Army. I was pretty close, or I think I was pretty close to accomplishing that up until the time that I went back into my private law practice."
---------------------
Part of his bio included with the transcript:
[Mr. Stuart] enlisted in the Army Air Forces in August 1942. His active duty included assignments as an intelligence officer with the 497th Fighter Bomber Squadron at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Headquarters Ninth Air Force in Europe, and the SHAEF mission to Norway. After he left active duty in February 1946, he remained in the Air Force Reserve.

In addition to his service as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Stuart actively participated in a variety of civic and business affairs following World War II. His Air Force related activities included being president of the Air Force Association, 1951 1952, and special consultant to the Secretary of the Air Force, 1961 1963. Mr. Stuart also served as chairman of the board of the Air Force Academy Foundation.
--------------
Full transcript: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/stuarth.htm

Mike
Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,850
Unit: Earth

« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2014, 05:37:37 PM »

Imagine how big of a problem this was if it was elevated to the AS of the AF for Civil Affairs level.

Fascinating.  Thanks,
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2014, 06:13:02 PM »

There were also a lot of issues in that timeframe between the Air National Guard and the active Air Force.  The ANG was often seen as a "flying club" full of officers who did not take military affiliation seriously, and who would fall back on the "but we belong to the State" when called upon for AF operations.  Back then, ANG aircraft were not allowed to carry USAF titling unless called to FAD.





However, many CAP aircraft flew with U.S. AIR FORCE titling along with CAP identifiers:





I have long been an advocate for distinctive (that word again) rank insignia for CAP officers; the Royal Dutch Air Force derived theirs from the RAF (a lot of Dutch served in RAF squadrons in WWII) and would look good on us.


Second Lieutenant


First Lieutenant


Captain


Major


Lieutenant Colonel


Colonel


Brigadier General (National Deputy CC)


Major General

...but then you get those who say "I don't want to look like Tony McPeak/the Navy/the Coast Guard/the Airlines/anything but what we look like now."

Nonetheless, a rather interesting article.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2014, 06:55:58 AM »

"We also had the Air ROTC and the Civil Air Patrol. We had problems with the Civil Air Patrol that was made up of non military people and generally those who had never served or did not serve on active duty in the Air Corps, but flew as civilians, flew with their own aircraft on submarine patrol, and search and rescue missions during the war and after the war.

Mike that was interesting. I quoted what I thought the highlight was. CAP is civilians and always will be. Thank you for sharing.  8)
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2014, 03:55:14 PM »

The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel. And, they had uniforms identical to the Air Force uniforms. They would wear an insignia identical to the Air Force with a small blue patch that designated them as Civil Air Patrol. There is a great deal of resentment among the reservists and the Guard and the regular Air Force, those on active duty.

At various conventions or meetings, the heads of the Civil Air Patrol were commandeering military vehicles. The younger officers and enlisted personnel were saluting and taking some direction not knowing they were Civil Air Patrol. They had a political impact. They were organized virtually in every state and insisted on keeping the Air Force rank and uniforms.


Fascinating.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2014, 04:02:19 PM »

One man's "commandeering a vehicle" is another's "using the vehicle assigned and Lt Whiner doesn't like it...". There's far too little
detail here to make any real inferences, except that CAP members causing their own issues by not understanding their place
in the universe is nothing new.

It only takes one goofball to wreck it for everyone, and if the goofball's commander isn't vigilant and willing to keep them in
check, Bob's your uncle...
Logged


Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2014, 04:04:51 PM »

You're not my uncle.   >:D
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2014, 11:19:48 PM »

I read the report.  It reinforces what I said about how the ANG at that time really didn't fit into the Air Force structure.

I have very often thought - and this is from a former ANG member - that it is really redundant to have both an Air National Guard and an Air Force Reserve.  A former supervisor of mine who did a tour at the Pentagon in the ANG section of the NGB readily agreed.  He said "you would not want to see the jockeying among Governors as to who gets the next allocation of F-16's...it's a prestige issue."

I personally wonder why a State Governor needs a wing of F-16's or A-10's.  To me, it would be far more cost-effective to roll those combat units into the Air Force Reserve, as well as rolling direct-combat units of the ArNG into the Army Reserve, while maintaining a capability of supporting the active Army and Air Force as needed, but with units that could be more useful at the State level.  To me, the C-27 would be the ideal aircraft for the Air National Guard.  It would fill the role of transport for which using C-130s would be far too expensive (such as providing parachute training for the Army), yet at the State level could be easily configured into DR/Air Ambulance, as well as transporting ArNG troops for contingencies like disaster relief and riot control.



The issues raised by the report WRT CAP being top-heavy with field-grade officers is almost identical to some complaints I have heard about SDF's.  When I first joined CAP, my SDF was also trying to recruit me (but they said I couldn't be a member of both - go figure) and were going to pin WO-1 on me immediately just because I had an associate's degree in Computer Information Systems.

As far as the report's rightful condemnation of CAP officers using authority they didn't have to procure items they had no right to, that is a behaviour issue much more than a uniform issue.  Eclipse is right, it takes one goofball to wreck it for others.

The uniform could be chopped and changed until the end of time and there would still be goofballs trying to do that.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,422

« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2014, 12:29:05 AM »

The Governor of a state does NOT get to pick what kind of aircraft that are assigned to their state's Air National Guard.
They can make their preferences known to the National Guard Bereau, but the NGB is not obligated to follow them.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2014, 01:47:45 AM »

True.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20081443558FSupp2d885_11372.xml/BLAGOJEVICH%20v.%20GATES
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/385/768/2441165/
Logged


Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2014, 02:08:43 AM »

The Air National Guard has a dual role as the air component of the state militia and a reserve component of the Air Force when federalized. It has its place and the Air Force Reserve, which is solely a federal component, cannot replace it or fulfill many of its state functions. The ANG is as necessary as the AFRES and both are an important part of the Air Force total force. In fact, the ANG has proven its worth in many conflicts, to include the War on Terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

While transport aircraft can be a vital asset to the states, fighter aircraft can play an important role in air defense. In the end, it's not up to the governors, but up to Congress and the DoD and USAF to determine where these assets are located.
Logged
Simplex
Forum Regular

Posts: 104

« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2014, 02:50:50 AM »

As a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2014, 07:39:30 AM »

The Governor of a state does NOT get to pick what kind of aircraft that are assigned to their state's Air National Guard.
They can make their preferences known to the National Guard Bereau, but the NGB is not obligated to follow them.

I did not intend to imply that the Governor gets to pick an ANG unit's aircraft.  My point was that my former supervisor who worked in the NGB described intense politicking among Governors in "making their preferences known."

The Air National Guard has a dual role as the air component of the state militia and a reserve component of the Air Force when federalized. It has its place and the Air Force Reserve, which is solely a federal component, cannot replace it or fulfill many of its state functions. The ANG is as necessary as the AFRES and both are an important part of the Air Force total force. In fact, the ANG has proven its worth in many conflicts, to include the War on Terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

While transport aircraft can be a vital asset to the states, fighter aircraft can play an important role in air defense. In the end, it's not up to the governors, but up to Congress and the DoD and USAF to determine where these assets are located.

I never, ever meant to demean the ANG.

I was in the ANG, in a Tactical Fighter Wing.  In fact, we would sometimes joke about going to war with other states if they didn't "straighten up and fly right."

My point was not to say the ANG should be disbanded or is somehow inferior to the AFRES.  I never intended that.

My point was to say that I found it somewhat illogical that the ANG, with its dual mission, has historically had the bulk of the Air Reserve Forces' fighter aircraft, and that the AFRES, which is Federal-only, has historically been transport-orientated (with many notable exceptions, of course).  It seems to me that it would be more useful the other way around - with the ANG being able to serve their State and Federal missions more effectively with transport orientation, and for the AFRES to handle the fighter mission of Air Defence of the CONUS as a solely Federal mission.  I also questioned the efficacy of a Governor having need of fighter/attack aircraft under his/her command.

In fact, a few years ago, the former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, got into a tussle with the Air Force when, during a round of BRAC, he tried to refuse giving up the F-16's of the 183rd Fighter Wing at Springfield on the grounds that they were "his" aircraft, except when the unit was called into Federal service (see Eclipse's citation).  It didn't wash, and Blagojevich later went to prison on an unrelated matter.

Curiously, the 183rd still calls itself a Fighter Wing, though it has no aircraft and has a very multidisciplinary augmentation role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/183rd_Fighter_Wing

But hey, whattheheck do I know...I was just trying to state an opinion, not disrespect anyone or anything...and I seem to have fallen flat on my empennage trying to get that across.

As a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!

I know.  Based on my lack of success as a former Guard member on offering opinions having to do with the fine men and women of the ANG being misinterpreted, I will say nothing about the circumstances of the unit at Mansfield changing aircraft.

 :-X
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
FlyTiger77
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 624

« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2014, 10:45:24 AM »


My point was to say that I found it somewhat illogical that the ANG, with its dual mission, has historically had the bulk of the Air Reserve Forces' fighter aircraft, and that the AFRES, which is Federal-only, has historically been transport-orientated (with many notable exceptions, of course).  It seems to me that it would be more useful the other way around - with the ANG being able to serve their State and Federal missions more effectively with transport orientation, and for the AFRES to handle the fighter mission of Air Defence of the CONUS as a solely Federal mission.  I also questioned the efficacy of a Governor having need of fighter/attack aircraft under his/her command.

If you were Congress and wanted to limit a President's ability to make and sustain war for a long period without popular support, how would you configure the Reserve Components of each military department? Would you put the major combat formations in the components assigned to the several states and the combat support assets in the federal component?

Right or wrong, there is a valid reason for the current configuration.
Logged
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2014, 03:27:17 PM »

Colonel, since I have apparently stumbled over myself already, I am going to limit what I say.

I know the current configuration of the Guard is due to its descent from the State militias - prior to the Militia Act of 1903 (also called, wait for it, the Dick Act), the National Guard was much more under state control and a lot harder to call into Federal service than it is now.  It was more like today's State Guards/State Defence Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Also, the Air Force's origins in the Army played a part.

I remember my dad telling me that when he was in the Guard in the 1950s, he did not have to go to Army Basic Training - it was all done at the local unit.  However, when he went active duty he had to go to Basic Training at Fort Hood (he got out of the Guard and started his paperwork to join the Navy, but got drafted into the Army - don't ask me how, I never knew and he's not around anymore for me to ask).

After WWII but before the Air Force became independent, the National Guard of course had aviation units.  Sometimes they did not even display the USAF roundel, as this Delaware F-47 shows:



When the Air Force became independent, it brought the Air National Guard in with it, as well as creating an Air Force Reserve - that's all I will say on my very limited thumbnail sketch of skewed history.

I am also curious as to why there have not been state National Guard versions raised of the Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard (and I'm not talking about Naval Militias/SDFs, like Ohio and New York have).  I would think that it could be allowed Constitutionally.



With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

Beyond that...


 :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2014, 03:33:44 PM »

With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a
command chain that flows through from the USAF.

Logged


The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2014, 04:00:34 PM »

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.

Problem 1 is as much our fault, if not more, than the USAF's.  CAP in the 1990s wanted to be more "corporate," with "less interference" from the AF, though we still wanted our flying hours paid for.  Be careful what you wish for...

Problem 2 -  :-X
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,185

« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2014, 04:50:50 PM »

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.

Problem 1 is as much our fault, if not more, than the USAF's.  CAP in the 1990s wanted to be more "corporate," with "less interference" from the AF, though we still wanted our flying hours paid for.  Be careful what you wish for...

Problem 2 -  :-X

CAP did not wish to be more "corporate" in the 1990s.  The Air Force went through some large budget cuts which led to the removal of all Air Force employees assigned to run CAP HQ.  It was also the beginning of the end of the LO structure below region.  In 1994 (if I remember correctly) , CAP's AF employees became CAP corporate employees. This also coincided with a new C&BL drawn up under, then National Commander Rich Anderson.  This was all done with the consent of the Air Force and Congress.  In 1998, the GAO finally realized CAP was not a government entity.  New legislation was passed, things changed, time went on, and we have the current structure.  CAP changed because of realities it had to deal with.  "Wants" had little to do with it. 

Actually, if it was up to CAP, the pre-1994 structure of CAP would have been just fine.
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2014, 05:55:30 PM »


With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2014, 11:26:22 PM »


With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.

Just being pedantic.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,850
Unit: Earth

« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2014, 11:41:52 PM »

Back on topic, it would be wonderful to get the opinions of tbe previous CAP-USAF commanders on CAP.  I wonder what they would say our biggest problems and strengths are.  That is their unrestricted, non-political opinions.
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2014, 12:31:17 PM »


With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.

Just being pedantic.

You or me? You expressed an opinion and so did I. Our experiences have obviously been different.

Back on topic, it would be wonderful to get the opinions of tbe previous CAP-USAF commanders on CAP.  I wonder what they would say our biggest problems and strengths are.  That is their unrestricted, non-political opinions.

Agree. That would be an interesting insight.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2014, 02:15:32 PM »


With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.

Just being pedantic.

You or me? You expressed an opinion and so did I. Our experiences have obviously been different.

No, no, old son.  Me.  I should have specified that.  Pedantry is one of my worst, and most obvious, defects of character.

Back on topic, it would be wonderful to get the opinions of tbe previous CAP-USAF commanders on CAP.  I wonder what they would say our biggest problems and strengths are.  That is their unrestricted, non-political opinions.

Agree. That would be an interesting insight.

Agreed as well.  I would especially be interested in hearing the opinion of whoever was CC CAP-USAF when the infamous "Harwell incident" took place.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,977

« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2014, 03:45:04 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2014, 04:46:39 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.

I wonder what you would define as "normal."  I think it's very much a YMMV issue, depending on Wing, Group or even Squadron level.

My own squadron has a Lieutenant Colonel, three Majors (one of whom is the CC and one a former CC), four Captains (myself included), two 1st Lts, and two 2nd Lts.

I remember one squadron in another wing commanded by a SMWOG...this person was the one who got the squadron going and was a Major last time I heard.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,977

« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2014, 05:36:28 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.

I wonder what you would define as "normal."  I think it's very much a YMMV issue, depending on Wing, Group or even Squadron level.

My own squadron has a Lieutenant Colonel, three Majors (one of whom is the CC and one a former CC), four Captains (myself included), two 1st Lts, and two 2nd Lts.

I remember one squadron in another wing commanded by a SMWOG...this person was the one who got the squadron going and was a Major last time I heard.
Its going to vary at the squadron level -- certainly possible to have a cadet squadron run by 3 Lt. Cols with no other senior members.

But, at the wing and national level it is pyramid shaped, except for the oddities of the 100 or so NCOs and the new people in SM status.
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,951
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2014, 08:07:50 PM »

The CAP and Air Force Grade structures are not comparable for several reasons.

1. CAP does not have an "Up or out" policy on advancements, nor High Year Tenure.

2. Professional Development past Level I is not required and is voluntary in nature.

3. No age limit on CAP membership.

4. No mandatory retirements.

So when a unit has a plethora of Senior Officers, it must be viewed as the natural result of those features listed.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,977

« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2014, 08:57:27 PM »

The CAP and Air Force Grade structures are not comparable for several reasons.

1. CAP does not have an "Up or out" policy on advancements, nor High Year Tenure.

2. Professional Development past Level I is not required and is voluntary in nature.

3. No age limit on CAP membership.

4. No mandatory retirements.

So when a unit has a plethora of Senior Officers, it must be viewed as the natural result of those features listed.
5.  Most prior military service officers are going to soon be at their prior rank after joining and this group does comprise a small, but not minor component of senior members. 
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2014, 09:33:17 PM »

One issue with the CAP promotion system is that specialty track requirements are not applied evenly throughout each specialty. For example, while is possible for a Professional Development Officer or Administrative Officer to earn their Master Rating without ever serving beyond the unit level, Operations Officers and Emergency Services Officers must serve at the wing or higher to earn this rating. And while an Operations Officer or Safety Officer only needs 12 months of services as a Senior rated officer in their specialty, Logistics Officers and Cadet Programs Officers require 18 months. Heck, Emergency Services Officers need at least three years at the wing level after attaining the Senior rating.

I understand some of the differences due to the nature of the specialty track and associated duty assignments, but there should be some level of consistency across the board.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2014, 10:46:42 PM »

"Consistency" and "CAP" in the same thought?

There's a novel approach. >:D

Another issue, though this is comparatively quite few, are those who have earned their Spaatz who decide to transfer to senior status (as Captains).

My first squadron had one of those - an exceptional young woman - but found she hated senior status.  I went from her having to salute me to having to salute her, as I was a 1st Lt when she transferred.

Unlike CAP, most SDF's require prior-service to come in at their prior-service grade and promote from there (including to warrant or commissioned status), whereas almost all of our new members come in and automatically gain officer status after six months, prior-service or not.

We also don't have any sort of "initial entry training" like most SDF's.  It would (to me) be beneficial for CAP to be able to provide something like this, at the Wing or even Group level, over a weekend (or several) on a military installation (even a National Guard armoury).  I don't mean being yelled at by MTI's necessarily, but really given the nitty-gritty of the function of CAP, how it relates to the Air Force, grade structure, C&C's, basic D&C's, our three Congressionally-mandated missions, and how to wear (and not wear!) the uniform, rather than just the (IMO) rather poor Level I generally being given now.

Of course, there would be problems with finding volunteers to teach it, although the nearly-moribund CAP-RAP could perhaps get a shot in the arm from this, with Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Officers and Airmen granted creditable service to do so.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2014, 02:31:13 AM »

As to CAP commendeering vehicles, up to the 1990's CAP was eligible to obtain a DoD drivers license. The license specified types of vehicles authorized. Mine had 4x4 deuce and a half and 26 passn'gr bus authorized. CAP could REQUEST the use of a vehicle for CAP use. The old Orlando Naval Training Center allowed CAP to use Navy vehicles if the driver held a DoD license. To get such a license involved taking a written test and demonstrating to the Motor Pool Officer the ability to drive the vehicle. Basically the same as any civilian does to get their first drivers license. It took a full weekend at McDill AFB to get my DoD license in 1962.
Being able to request a bus at Wright Patterson for cadet tour of the Air Force Museum was one of the benefits of having the license. At other times it benefited USAF by not having to supply a driver at encampments and other activities on a USAF base.
Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2014, 02:57:42 AM »

Sounds like another thing that went sour for us in the 1990s. >:(
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,422

« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2014, 03:01:35 AM »

Sounds like another thing that went sour for us in the 1990s. >:(

Went sour because of a bus accident in California Wing.  AF Bus + CAP Driver (with AF Drivers Licence) = Big Mess.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,667

« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2014, 03:18:01 AM »

As to CAP commendeering vehicles, up to the 1990's CAP was eligible to obtain a DoD drivers license. The license specified types of vehicles authorized. Mine had 4x4 deuce and a half and 26 passn'gr bus authorized. CAP could REQUEST the use of a vehicle for CAP use. The old Orlando Naval Training Center allowed CAP to use Navy vehicles if the driver held a DoD license. To get such a license involved taking a written test and demonstrating to the Motor Pool Officer the ability to drive the vehicle. Basically the same as any civilian does to get their first drivers license. It took a full weekend at McDill AFB to get my DoD license in 1962.
Being able to request a bus at Wright Patterson for cadet tour of the Air Force Museum was one of the benefits of having the license. At other times it benefited USAF by not having to supply a driver at encampments and other activities on a USAF base.
Up untill 2006 at least....CAP could still get vehicles from the motor pool.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
a2capt
300,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,089
Unit: pǝʇɹǝʌuı

« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2014, 03:24:17 AM »

..and that wouldn't be the end of bus shenanigans though. ;)
Logged
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,174

« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2014, 02:21:55 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.
I can tell you that as of yesterday, my wing has:
Col:  1
Lt Col: 50
Maj:  78
Capt:  89
1st Lt: 60
2nd Lt:  58
SM:  92
Sgt:  1
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,951
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2014, 02:49:14 PM »

No past Wing or Region Commanders in the Wing?
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,850
Unit: Earth

« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2014, 04:02:27 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.

This was brought up a while back and NHQ published the numbers for the rank structure. Essentially, it was a 1:1:1 ratio for 2d Lt through Lt Col. Obviously not true for SM and Col and above.   Although I think captain was higher at 1.4, but essentially the same. So we do not have a pyramid.
Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2014, 05:39:42 PM »

Quote
The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel.

I wonder to what extent that was true back then.  It is still the stereotype today that everyone is a Colonel even though the actual data conclusively shows that we have a normal pyramid shaped distribution of officers in various ranks.
I can tell you that as of yesterday, my wing has:
Col:  1
Lt Col: 50
Maj:  78
Capt:  89
1st Lt: 60
2nd Lt:  58
SM:  92
Sgt:  1

While I'm sure not all of these members are active, as of 30 Oct, my wing had the following:

Col: 18
Lt Col: 302
Maj: 319
Capt: 422
1st Lt: 301
2d Lt: 322
CMSgt: 0
SMSgt: 1
MSgt: 4
TSgt: 2
SSgt: 0
SM: 404
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2014, 05:58:31 PM »

While I'm sure not all of these members are active,

The core of the issue (not aimed at you).

Few of the numbers published by NHQ as "statistics" have any value in shaping action
because the numbers aren't "clean".

Every one of those eagles could be a unit CC, or an empty shirt.

The fact that the organization tends to be top heavy with captains >might< also be interesting.

Are they pilots brought in a captains?  If so, why are we crying for pilots all the time?

Do members top out at captain because that's where the ROI ends, and there's no incentive for the average member to advance
(especially considering no job is closed because of lack of advancement).

Is the bureaucracy for advancement past captain so boggling that commanders delay and defer or members don't' want to bother?
Or related, the made-up, subjective bar is different for almost every member so things get denied when they should be approved?

The one about having too many captains and not enough pilots should be a discussion point.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 06:02:46 PM by Eclipse » Logged


JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,174

« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2014, 09:24:39 PM »

No past Wing or Region Commanders in the Wing?

The last two, one is on National Staff, one is the region CV, and with the current CC just about 3 1/2 years in (he's counting the days!) that takes us back over a decade.  I'm not counting any Patrons, only active Senior members.

We had one Col for quite some time who had never held any office that normally is a prerequisite for birds.  Being inducted to the Aviation Hall of Fame, having over 57,000 logged hours, and being a CFI into her 90s, with a 3-digit age, tends to make an honourary appointment to Colonel grade a possibility.  But she, unfortunately passed away.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2014, 12:02:15 AM »

Ignore, misread
Logged


Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2014, 05:21:50 AM »

No past Wing or Region Commanders in the Wing?

Not unusual. They are still moving up. Eventually they come back to the Wing or a Squadron in the Wing. The Generals tend to be in "000" units.  8)
Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2014, 05:38:23 AM »

The fact that the organization tends to be top heavy with captains >might< also be interesting.

Are they pilots brought in a captains?  If so, why are we crying for pilots all the time?

Do members top out at captain because that's where the ROI ends, and there's no incentive for the average member to advance
(especially considering no job is closed because of lack of advancement).

Is the bureaucracy for advancement past captain so boggling that commanders delay and defer or members don't' want to bother?
Or related, the made-up, subjective bar is different for almost every member so things get denied when they should be approved?

The one about having too many captains and not enough pilots should be a discussion point.

Interesting point about Captains. Either prior military or watching too much T.V. Members like being Captains. Captain Courageous, Captain Blood, Captain Morgan, Captain Kirk, Captain Bligh, Captain Cook, Captain John Paul Jones, Captain Phillips, Captain Smith, Captain Ahab, Captain Hook, Captain Jack Sparrow, Cap'n Crunch, Captain America and CyBorg.

When our 4th grade teacher asked what we wanted to be when we grew up. The boys answered, "Captain" and the girls answered, "Nurse" or "Captain's wife" but that happens on a military base.   8)
Logged
vento
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2014, 07:02:35 AM »

.....

When our 4th grade teacher asked what we wanted to be when we grew up. The boys answered, "Captain" and the girls answered, "Nurse" or "Captain's wife" but that happens on a military base.   8)

Must be a Navy base...
Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2014, 04:03:35 AM »

.....

When our 4th grade teacher asked what we wanted to be when we grew up. The boys answered, "Captain" and the girls answered, "Nurse" or "Captain's wife" but that happens on a military base.   8)

Must be a Navy base...

Camp Pendleton, home of the 1st Marine Division. "The Old Breed". You will not believe who some of my classmate fathers were.  8)
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2014, 04:34:15 AM »

Is the bureaucracy for advancement past captain so boggling that commanders delay and defer or members don't' want to bother?
Or related, the made-up, subjective bar is different for almost every member so things get denied when they should be approved?

My thoughts exactly.

Whether or not one gets approved for Major is highly subjective.  I know I've brought my case up before, and hence won't go into detail about it, but Eclipse's sentence certainly made me think of that.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2014, 02:18:48 PM »

One re3ason that promotions e3nd at Captain is the member doesn't have a Bachelors Degree to take the Air Force courses required for promotion to Major.
Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903

« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2014, 06:28:51 PM »

One re3ason that promotions e3nd at Captain is the member doesn't have a Bachelors Degree to take the Air Force courses required for promotion to Major.

Take the CAP specific courses, and this is a nonissue.

Advancement beyond captain is political. You do (or should) have to to have some experience outside your unit, and interaction at the group level or higher.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2014, 07:27:36 PM »

Advancement beyond captain is political.

That statement should be etched on a bronze plaque and mounted at NHQ on a marble pillar.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2014, 08:09:25 PM »

I've met and worked with many competent, knowledgable, experienced and professional Majs and Lt Cols, who were not political at all. They were just really good officers.

I've also met and worked with many Majs and Lt Cols who were not that good, yet got promoted not because they were political, but because they checked all the boxes.

We need to promote those CAP officers who've performed well at the current grade and have demonstrated potential for increased responsibility at the next grade. Unfortunately, not every CAP officer meets that criteria.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903

« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2014, 08:34:06 PM »

I've met and worked with many competent, knowledgable, experienced and professional Majs and Lt Cols, who were not political at all. They were just really good officers.

I've also met and worked with many Majs and Lt Cols who were not that good, yet got promoted not because they were political, but because they checked all the boxes.

We need to promote those CAP officers who've performed well at the current grade and have demonstrated potential for increased responsibility at the next grade. Unfortunately, not every CAP officer meets that criteria.

Agreed on all counts. However, look at the approving authority for grades past captain. That alone makes it political. I've seen plenty of great members who weren't promoted above captain because they wouldn't/didn't get their face and name known outside of their comfort zone. I've also known planty who did glad hand a bit and still weren't bumped.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2014, 08:39:00 PM »

I've seen plenty of great members who weren't promoted above captain because they wouldn't/didn't get their face and name known outside of their comfort zone.

Then why would they be worthy of promotion?

Maj and above is supposed to include participation at a scope of Group or higher, thus the approval levels.

It's only "political" on the same level as "Life is political", meaning you have to please, or at least not displease, those with the pen.
Logged


THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903

« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2014, 08:51:38 PM »

I've seen plenty of great members who weren't promoted above captain because they wouldn't/didn't get their face and name known outside of their comfort zone.

Then why would they be worthy of promotion?

Maj and above is supposed to include participation at a scope of Group or higher, thus the approval levels.

It's only "political" on the same level as "Life is political", meaning you have to please, or at least not displease, those with the pen.

Exactly. Part of the game is getting all of the boxes checked. One of those boxes means that you have to poke your head out of your shell and interact with managment and leadership above your current level.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2014, 09:58:44 PM »

Sometimes it doesn't have to do with a "comfort zone," often it has to do with a personality type.

I don't know how familiar any of you are with the Myers-Briggs personality tests (which are themselves based on Jungian personality classifications), but those are usually a good indicator.

I tend to fall into the ISFJ category.

http://www.16personalities.com/isfj-personality

My own personal opinion, which I will not be swayed from, is that CAP's criteria for promotion beyond company grade is too "cookie-cutter," failing to take into account that for some people, it is not a matter of "comfort zone"...it is a matter of how one is "hard-wired" at birth (I could get into A&P about glial cells, myelin sheaths, etc., during the formation of the human brain, but I won't), combined with life/behavioural experience.

At the same time, politics does play a part...if one has a commander who is insensitive to such things, instant brick wall.  If one has a commander willing to work with those who are not glad-handing "HEY HOWYA DOIN?!" extraverts, there are more possibilities.

Unfortunately, CAP seems to associate the latter with "leadership skills and capabilities," not remembering people like Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh "Stuffy" Dowding, who was largely responsible for winning the Battle of Britain...and then sidelined by the RAF because of his inability/unwillingness to "play politics."

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Hugh_Dowding,_1st_Baron_Dowding

I think the Navy is onto something with its Limited Duty Officer and Warrant Officer billets...but of course one will never convince CAP of that.

http://www.ocs.navy.mil/ldo.asp



Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,527

« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2014, 10:09:17 PM »

Motivation, personality, comfort zones, & behavioral experience are essentially irrelevant, and frankly a lot of that
is what people trot out as excuses.

If you are unwilling or unable to participate at a scope larger then the squadron level, then promotion above Major is inappropriate.
There's nothing wrong with staying at the squadron, those contributions are important and necessary to CAPs
operations, and if the pyramid was treated properly in CAP (i.e. NHQ's job is to serve the member, because it's the
members who execute the missions, not vice versa), then this would be understood better.

There's no way around that, and it's consistent with similar scope in the military.  For some reason there is resentment
about people who do more and are recognized for it.  On a personal level, that's your private right, but when you've
got your CAP shirt on, you should be thankful there are people who have the circumstances that enable them to
run encampments, NCSAs, flight academies, etc., or put in full-time-type hours, because without them, CAP grinds to
a halt. (With that said, if you're putting in full-time hours at the squadron level, your unit is broken.)

The problem is that without tying promotions to assignments, they are treated as rewards for work done instead
of the mantle of responsibility.

At the same time, politics does play a part...if one has a commander who is insensitive to such things, instant brick wall.  If one has a commander willing to work with those who are not glad-handing "HEY HOWYA DOIN?!" extraverts, there are more possibilities.

If your unit of record is appropriate for the promotion expected, this is not an issue.

It's only when it isn't, and members expect a commander to advocate something they don't agree with that the hurt feelings
start.

Rare is the member who is assigned at the Group or wing level denied Major, or Wing or Region level denied Lt Col.
In cases where someone is assigned to a unit but serving ADY at a larger scope such as a Group/Wing/Region staff position,
significant contributor of a wing-level activity, or perhaps a major player in ES training, then it is short work for a commander
to justify the field grade promotions.

But if you're parked at a unit with limited ability to participate for personal reasons, then Captain is an appropriate
grade, and any further work on PD or projects should be recognized by PD levels and decorations.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 12:07:46 AM by Eclipse » Logged


GroundHawg
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 615

« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2014, 12:34:46 AM »

As a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!

On as side, side, note, I have worked the plane pictured. I really liked the Spartans and thought that the Army would pick them to replace the Sherpas. My last deployment was a joint one, we loved the STOL and could get to quite a few FOBs that were too small for other AC. The only thing that sucked is that a 10K AT loader will not fit into one, so if a C130 would not fit at the strip, and a C27 would, you would have to hot drop loads out the tail and then manually stack a bunch of pallets into the plane later, basically building a pallet one piece at a time, through the tail, inside the aircraft. Let me tell you, that sucks on epic proportions.
The USFS and USCG are getting a great platform (though expensive) and I hope to see them put to good use. It is insane to have basically new aircraft sitting in an Arizona boneyard.
Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2014, 02:44:38 AM »

Advancement beyond captain is political.

That statement should be etched on a bronze plaque and mounted at NHQ on a marble pillar.


It's not just political. Ass kissing may be required as well.
Logged
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2014, 10:22:31 AM »

Advancement beyond captain is political.

That statement should be etched on a bronze plaque and mounted at NHQ on a marble pillar.


It's not just political. Ass kissing may be required as well.

Ass kissing is a POV. An unfriendly person may think a friendly person is an ass kisser just because.

Every Unit is different. Some Units you just check what needs to be checked off and you got the next grade regardless how little you really know or participate. Other Units you really have to earn a rating in a speciality, you really have to "earn" what you get. Lot of our members have entitlement issues. YMMV  8)
Logged
JeffDG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,174

« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2014, 01:09:50 PM »

Sometimes it doesn't have to do with a "comfort zone," often it has to do with a personality type.

I don't know how familiar any of you are with the Myers-Briggs personality tests (which are themselves based on Jungian personality classifications), but those are usually a good indicator.

I tend to fall into the ISFJ category.

http://www.16personalities.com/isfj-personality

No, it is a "comfort zone".  I'm an Extreme ISTJ myself, with emphasis on the "I".  Does it make it more difficult to deal with new people and accept new responsibilities?  Yep.  The question is then, so what?  If I want to advance, that's on me, not someone else.  I have zero right to demand that someone else accommodate me and my personality type if I want something from them.  It's up to me to find ways that I can make myself a valuable addition to the team and show my value.
Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2014, 06:56:42 PM »

Motivation, personality, comfort zones, & behavioral experience are essentially irrelevant, and frankly a lot of that is what people trot out as excuses.

Your opinion of course, and based on your personal experience, which I will not try to discredit.  However, I believe the adage "unless you've walked a mile in another's shoes..." applies.  However, you seem to contradict your earlier statement:

"Or related, the made-up, subjective bar is different for almost every member so things get denied when they should be approved?"

A former commander of mine in another wing told me (verbatim) "You should have been a Major 10 years ago, and you will be once you finish out your TIG here."

Unfortunately, that was the unit where an IG I initiated went down, the GOBN at Wing fired my CC for supporting me and countersigning the IG complaint I lodged, and I left, as we were going to be moving soon anyway.

JeffDG, I respect your opinion as well, but I do not agree with it, nor do I believe that I have the "entitlement mentality" that Private Investigator noted.  I was a hardscrabble kid who came from a background where you got nothing for nothing and often nothing for something.  If I hadn't fought out of that, I wouldn't be here today, and, without trying to sound arrogant, was a hell of a lot harder than trying to meet an arbitrary CAP promotion standard that is going to be different depending on who is applying it.

Hier stehe ich.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2014, 07:23:25 PM »

I don't mean to question your experience, which is very personal and not necessarily a reflection of CAP as a whole. But there are many with ISFJ personality traits who are very successful in business, government, the military and non-profit organizations such as CAP. Your example of Sir Hugh Dowding is proof of that.

Maybe you got a bad deal and maybe other members have as well. But that's true in the government and private sectors as well. Life is not always fair. But to suggest that because you or others experienced a setback, that anyone who has been able to succeed in this system had to play politics or be part of the GOBN is an unfair generalization. And it's just not true.

While I don't know all the details of your particular situation, it's obvious by your own posts that you're unable (or unwilling) to participate in CAP beyond the unit level. You've mentioned health issues and personality traits (being an introvert) as reasons for not being able to do more. Fair enough. But from a commander's perspective, it's hard to recommend or approve a promotion to a level in which, by your own admission, you're not performing.

I'm sure you're a fine officer and gentleman. But if you want a promotion to major, you need to be able to perform as a major. Promotions should not be merely a reward for what you've done in the past, but recognition of what you can and will do now and in the future.
Logged
flyboy53
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 917

« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2014, 09:23:28 AM »

Motivation, personality, comfort zones, & behavioral experience are essentially irrelevant, and frankly a lot of that
is what people trot out as excuses.

If you are unwilling or unable to participate at a scope larger then the squadron level, then promotion above Major is inappropriate.
There's nothing wrong with staying at the squadron, those contributions are important and necessary to CAPs
operations, and if the pyramid was treated properly in CAP (i.e. NHQ's job is to serve the member, because it's the
members who execute the missions, not vice versa), then this would be understood better.

There's no way around that, and it's consistent with similar scope in the military.  For some reason there is resentment
about people who do more and are recognized for it.  On a personal level, that's your private right, but when you've
got your CAP shirt on, you should be thankful there are people who have the circumstances that enable them to
run encampments, NCSAs, flight academies, etc., or put in full-time-type hours, because without them, CAP grinds to
a halt. (With that said, if you're putting in full-time hours at the squadron level, your unit is broken.)

The problem is that without tying promotions to assignments, they are treated as rewards for work done instead
of the mantle of responsibility.

At the same time, politics does play a part...if one has a commander who is insensitive to such things, instant brick wall.  If one has a commander willing to work with those who are not glad-handing "HEY HOWYA DOIN?!" extraverts, there are more possibilities.

If your unit of record is appropriate for the promotion expected, this is not an issue.

It's only when it isn't, and members expect a commander to advocate something they don't agree with that the hurt feelings
start.

Rare is the member who is assigned at the Group or wing level denied Major, or Wing or Region level denied Lt Col.
In cases where someone is assigned to a unit but serving ADY at a larger scope such as a Group/Wing/Region staff position,
significant contributor of a wing-level activity, or perhaps a major player in ES training, then it is short work for a commander
to justify the field grade promotions.

But if you're parked at a unit with limited ability to participate for personal reasons, then Captain is an appropriate
grade, and any further work on PD or projects should be recognized by PD levels and decorations.

True.

But I have seen situations were people were largely frozen at a certain rank and just languished, getting bitter, as the years passed. Some times it IS purely political. Early in my CAP career I watched as a highly confident engineer and pilot was denied getting his captain's rank back because he was perceived to be a threat to the squadron and group commanders. That individual was one of the original CAP organizers and a personal friend of Gil Robb Wilson. He was that unit's wartime first commander and had done active CAP service in WWII as a flight instructor to the AAF. There was a break in service. It took going over the group CC directly to NHQ to correct the issue. To see what unfolded was amazing even by today's standards because that individual had the proof to show that his promotion to captain came directly from Gen. John F. Curry.

Also, I have been in those situations were promotions were given out as rewards, only to get very frustrated because those same individuals only got in the way at missions or during the general process of running units.

I am as far as my CAP career will take me. As an officer, I think I had 10 years as a first lieutenant before it took a special appointment by a region commander to get me beyond lieutenant to captain, and that was largely because I held an AF assignment at base level (base liaison and I was responsible for the building) that directly impacted on the Region, the Wing, the Group and the Squadron on base.

Beyond that, however, it has been largely as you stated, meaning that I have moved up through the command ranks (I'm a former group commander with several wing assignments in different wings) to get me to where I am now.

My personal suggestion to Cyborg would have been to catch the eye of someone at group or wing level, and then accept the responsibility that goes with that assignment. You might have been surprised where that led.

The promotions system of this organization isn't perfect. You have to fill the squares and accept the responsibility. It takes time and patience...and you don't burn bridges along the way.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 09:54:01 AM by flyboy1 » Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2014, 11:12:26 PM »

I don't mean to question your experience, which is very personal and not necessarily a reflection of CAP as a whole. But there are many with ISFJ personality traits who are very successful in business, government, the military and non-profit organizations such as CAP. Your example of Sir Hugh Dowding is proof of that.

Maybe you got a bad deal and maybe other members have as well. But that's true in the government and private sectors as well. Life is not always fair. But to suggest that because you or others experienced a setback, that anyone who has been able to succeed in this system had to play politics or be part of the GOBN is an unfair generalization. And it's just not true.

While I don't know all the details of your particular situation, it's obvious by your own posts that you're unable (or unwilling) to participate in CAP beyond the unit level. You've mentioned health issues and personality traits (being an introvert) as reasons for not being able to do more. Fair enough. But from a commander's perspective, it's hard to recommend or approve a promotion to a level in which, by your own admission, you're not performing.

I'm sure you're a fine officer and gentleman. But if you want a promotion to major, you need to be able to perform as a major. Promotions should not be merely a reward for what you've done in the past, but recognition of what you can and will do now and in the future.

PM sent.
Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
Private Investigator
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,158

« Reply #64 on: November 12, 2014, 10:50:34 AM »

I wonder if my grandchildren will ask me about the "Problems of 2007"?  8)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 1949 Problems - CAP Uniforms, Grade and Saluting
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 25 queries.