Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NHQ looking for the next National Command Chief of CAP
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: NHQ looking for the next National Command Chief of CAP  (Read 4982 times)
Falling Hare
Recruit

Posts: 13

« on: February 09, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »

Guys,

If you haven't heard, the selection process is now on for the next National Command Chief of CAP. A volunteer for this position must currently be serving in the grade of CAP Chief Master Sergeant.

The call for nominations will be open until 5 March 2018.  So I don't garble anything, here is the full announcement:

ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING THE
NATIONAL COMMAND CHIEF SELECTION PROCESS

1. Call for Nominations. The selection process for the next National Command Chief of CAP is hereby announced. The successful applicant will be appointed by Major General Mark Smith, CAP/CC, at the conclusion of the selection process.

2. Overview of the Process. Qualified members will self-nominate by emailing an application packet, including all of the required information, to Ms. Susie Parker, CAP’s Director of Personnel and Member Actions, at National Headquarters to arrive no later than 5:00 p.m. central time 5 March 2018. The National staff will perform the initial screening of applicants, and present Major General Smith with the results. One or more candidates will be selected for a final interview by Major General Smith.

3. Qualifications. Volunteers who serve in the grade of CAP Chief Master Sergeant may apply for the position. In addition, CAP volunteers who serve as an officer, but held the rank of Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force, or the equivalent rank in another service, may apply. The applicant must be a current CAP member in good standing, and have completed at least Level IV of the CAP Professional Development Program. A desired qualification is service as a command NCO at the wing or region level. Major General Smith may waive any qualifications provided the candidate can demonstrate comparable skills and experience. Accordingly, candidates requiring a waiver are encouraged to apply.

4. Evaluation. The application package (resume and supporting information) will be used to determine initial eligibility and qualifications for the position. Errors or omissions in the application package may affect an applicant’s ranking in the process. Final candidates may be required to interview with Major General Smith and provide additional information or materials for the final selection process. To facilitate the evaluation, please provide answers to the following questions:
1) Why do you think you are the best choice to serve as CAP’s National Command Chief?
2) What would your top three priorities be as the National Command Chief?
3) What challenges face successful implementation of the CAP NCO program, and how can these challenges be overcome?

5. How to Apply. To apply for this position, applicants must provide a complete application package. Electronic submissions are preferred, but application materials may be in paper format. Application packages must include:
a. Cover Letter
b. Resume: Should include both CAP and other professional experience
c. Answers to Command Chief Applicant questions posed in paragraph 4 above
d. Waiver Request and Justification (if applicable)
Do NOT submit additional materials such as photographs, videos, letters of recommendation or documents not listed above. Additional materials will not be considered and may result in the application package being rejected.
Send complete packages to:
E-mail:
SPARKER@capnhq.gov
Mail:
Ms. Susie Parker, CAP’s Director of Personnel and Member Actions
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street, Bldg 714
Maxwell AFB, Alabama 36112-5937

To receive full consideration, packages must be received no later than 5:00 PM CDT on 5 March 2018. NHQ staff will acknowledge receipt of application packages via email.
Note: Applicants are strongly advised to use e-mail. If not, use a commercial courier service such as Fed Ex or UPS rather than US Mail. Commercial courier services deliver directly to NHQ and provide “proof of delivery” services. By contrast, US Mail (including certified or priority mail) delivered to Maxwell AFB is processed through an Air Force distribution system which may result in delays as long as two weeks. No proof of delivery to NHQ is available for US Mail.

6. Questions concerning the process should be directed to Ms. Parker.

National Command Chief.
The Command Chief is the senior NCO Corps leader of Civil Air Patrol. The Command Chief provides leadership to the NCO members and advises the National Commander and staff on mission effectiveness, professional development, training and utilization of the command’s NCOs and takes action to address shortfalls or challenges. The Command Chief is expected to travel an average of once per month. The Command Chief will:
Participate in the decision making process, as appropriate, on technical, operational and organizational issues.
Review Air Force, CAP-USAF, and CAP Wing Instructions and policies, provide input and recommend changes for those instructions and policies affecting CAP members
Advise the National Commander for dress and personal appearance items affecting CAP members and specifically NCOs.
Serves as a representative of the National Commander.
Participates on the CAP Senior Advisory Group as a non-voting member.
Serves as the chair to the CAP NCO Corps Committee.
Serves as a member of the CAP National Uniform Committee.
Serves on award and recognition selection committees.
Encourage recognition of deserving CAP NCO members during annual functions.
Encourage the recruitment of enlisted service members currently serving or retired from military service for CAP membership.
Logged
kcebnaes
Forum Regular

Posts: 111
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2018, 05:09:52 PM »

In addition, CAP volunteers who serve as an officer, but held the rank of Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force, or the equivalent rank in another service, may apply. The applicant must be a current CAP member in good standing, and have completed at least Level IV of the CAP Professional Development Program.

To sort clear up some possible confusion, it looks like as long as you were an E-9 in any branch, AND have completed at least Level IV, you can apply too!
Logged
Maj Sean Beck
Ohio Wing
Director of Personnel
Group VI Commander
Gunsotsu
Member

Posts: 70

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2018, 12:21:25 AM »

Because CAP needs a good Command Chief for all those enlisted members and the copious NCOs.

 :o
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2018, 10:03:39 AM »

Because CAP needs a good Command Chief for all those enlisted members and the copious NCOs.

 :o

They would have many more NCOs, if there was an NCO Program. I've attended several of the NCO briefings at National Conferences going back 5 years, and every time we were told "WE expect the new CAPR 20-1 to be released momentarily to define NCO roles and then we can start building the NCO organization. After 5 years we have changes to CAPM 39-1 which only shows the NCO grade insignia, , and CAPR 35-5 which shows promotion eligibility that is no different then that shown for Officers. Going from Lt Col to SMSgt, in my case would entail, just in uniform costs about $300. Why do that when we have no discernable difference between those grades and I would be terminal in grade. I already have that as a Lt Col.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,209

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2018, 09:37:43 PM »

The NCO "Program" is a solution looking for a problem.  ::)
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2018, 10:56:26 PM »

Kinda bad like the "officer Program"?
Logged
Jester
Seasoned Member

Posts: 335

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2018, 11:15:29 PM »

Heeeere we go again.

If you meet the requirements and want to, apply. If neither, don’t.

Logged
grunt82abn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 243

« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2018, 07:02:21 PM »

Heeeere we go again.

If you meet the requirements and want to, apply. If neither, don’t.
Thank you Jester!!! Well said!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Sean Riley, TSGT
US Army 1987 to 1994, WIARNG 1994 to 2008
DoD Firefighter Paramedic 2000 to Present
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,480
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2018, 09:00:52 PM »

Kinda bad like the "officer Program"?

Ned,

I believe the membership has a legitimate gripe about this one.

We are part of an organization that is bleeding membership, having trouble identifying and carrying out new missions and is almost constantly bogged down at each and every level over “politics.”

Many of us “rank and file” members are waiting to hear real and tangible answers from NHQ on the issues listed above, as well as myriad of others and so far we see or hear nothing but change in regulation numbers, and this search for a “Command Chief.”

Time and time again we are told to make our ideas known and that many committees and the leadership are working hard to correct the current course, but again, we see no tangible results or ideas.

CAP should be better served by finding solid answers to the ever pressing issues, rather than trying to find a “Command Chief” who’s position and scope of influence are, at best, vague and misunderstood at the local level.   

If CAP had such an influx of recruits and missions that our struggle was fielding all the personnel we had, I could understand this endeavor.  But, the opposite is true, and I see my local Wing and Region struggling to keep members and fielding very few missions. 
Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,929
Unit: of issue

« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2018, 12:44:23 PM »

We are part of an organization that is bleeding membership, having trouble identifying and carrying out new missions and is almost constantly bogged down at each and every level over “politics.”
emphasis mine

Cite?

2015 Membership: 55,972
2016 Membership: 56,016
2017 Membership: 58,411

Civil Air Patrol membership has increased nearly 3,000 members between 2015 and 2017.  Bleeding?

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2018 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2018, 02:44:11 PM »

We are part of an organization that is bleeding membership, having trouble identifying and carrying out new missions and is almost constantly bogged down at each and every level over “politics.”
emphasis mine

Cite?

2015 Membership: 55,972
2016 Membership: 56,016
2017 Membership: 58,411

Civil Air Patrol membership has increased nearly 3,000 members between 2015 and 2017.  Bleeding?

Nin

What is the turnover rate of first and second year members? That is the true indication of bleeding membership.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2018, 03:28:05 PM »

Kinda bad like the "officer Program"?

Ned,

I believe the membership has a legitimate gripe about this one.

Interesting.  The first definition that comes up for "gripe" is to "grumble about something, especially something trivial."

But let's take a look.

Quote
We are part of an organization that is bleeding membership,

I hope it goes without saying that everyone is entitle to their opinions, and can freely express them here on CAPTalk, if done in a respectful manner.  But no one is entitled to their own facts.  And the fact is that membership is up significantly over the last couple of years.  But I can only agree we should have more members, especially cadets who comprise the largest mission in CAP.

Quote
having trouble identifying and carrying out new missions

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I'm pretty sure it is the US Congress that sets our missions, not us.  And by law (and the applicable AFIs and the Statement of Work) it is ES, AE, and CP.

Maybe you were just looking just through the narrow prism of ES, and noting that ELT search hours are down compared to historical averages.  True enough, thanks largely to SARSAT the cell phone technology.  The best analogy I've found is the volunteer fire department members becoming unhappy because there are fewer fires to fight because of smoke detectors and improved building codes.  Normally we think of fewer fires (and fewer ELTs) as a Good Thing.  Hardly worth griping about.

And the other good news is that our DR role has expanded significantly, including multi-state reasponses to major incidents.  I've personally sat with the AFNORTH Commander and discussed how he relies on CAP flight operations supporting his command.  He showed me several days of Air Tasking Orders for NORTHCOM that showed that CAP represented the majority of sorties flown that day.

The Cadet Program has become far more robust, with increased Air Force investment sending hundreds of additional cadets to encampment, and recently appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars specifically for cadet flight training.  Much of that will use our airframes.

AE has fielded more STEM kits than ever before.  There are new school programs emphasizing STEM with CAP branding all over the country.

Perspectives vary, of course, but from where I sit things are looking pretty good, on the road to getting better.

Quote
and is almost constantly bogged down at each and every level over “politics.”

Well, there you have me.  If you look for Evil Politics you will find them in every organization on Earth with more than two people.  Indeed, that is the only possible explanation as to why I am not the Chief Justice.

But seriously, CAP has taken huge steps over just the last few years to improve transparency and reduce Evil Politics.  I devoted a significant amount of my life to CAP Governance change, and it looks like the BoG's changes have measurable reduced the angst and Drama surrounding senior leader selections.  Just look at some of the histrionic threads here on CT and compare that to the relatively smooth selection process for the last two national commanders.

If you have ideas on how to further improve our process and transparency, the leadership is more than willing to listen and implement changes that improve our organization.  Best done through the CoC, but we can certainly talk about stuff in another thread.  That's what we do here.

Now having said all that, I have no idea why you thing this is in anyway related to the subject of this thread, selection of the next CAP Command Chief.  Sure, reasonable minds might differ about what positions should exist on the national staff.  Some people question whether we "need" a Chief of Chaplains or a National Medical Officer.  I get that.

But normally, we support commanders being able to select that staff that he/she believes are necessary for their command.  You obviously disagree with General Smith about what he needs to make the organization successful.  And that's fine. 

But "griping" about it here is unlike to change his mind.  You might want to speak with him directly and express your gripes.  He just doesn't happen to read this forum.

Ned Lee
Former Senior CAP Leader
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,929
Unit: of issue

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2018, 04:24:04 PM »

What is the turnover rate of first and second year members? That is the true indication of bleeding membership.

First year cadets: between 65 & 75% turnover.
Subsequent year cadets, closer to 40%

Senior members (we presently don't tease it out by first year/subsequent years): around 25%.

Senior member turn over has remained pretty steady between 21 & 25% for a long time. It actually varies only a small amount.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2018 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2018, 12:14:05 AM »

What is the turnover rate of first and second year members? That is the true indication of bleeding membership.

First year cadets: between 65 & 75% turnover.
Subsequent year cadets, closer to 40%

Senior member turn over has remained pretty steady between 21 & 25% for a long time. It actually varies only a small amount.

65% First year cadet loss is bloody! We at the local, Wing, and National level must cut those numbers drastically.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2018, 01:45:01 AM »

We are part of an organization that is bleeding membership, having trouble identifying and carrying out new missions and is almost constantly bogged down at each and every level over “politics.”
emphasis mine

Cite?

2015 Membership: 55,972
2016 Membership: 56,016
2017 Membership: 58,411

Civil Air Patrol membership has increased nearly 3,000 members between 2015 and 2017.  Bleeding?
That is roughly a three year growth rate of 6% - or an annualized growth of 2%. Had we cut the loss rates in half, imagine what that would look like! We may not be "bleeding" but we are certainly not growing in any kind of robust sense of the word. And that is a shame. The Cadet Program is one of the finest leadership programs in existence. Our nation needs this. Urgently.
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2018, 02:17:21 AM »

65% First year cadet loss is bloody! We at the local, Wing, and National level must cut those numbers drastically.

I know it "sounds bad,". But that is pretty consistent with our cadet retention rates for several decades.  You may notice that BSA will not publish or release their retention rates, but in private conversations with senior Scout leaders, their experience appears to be very similar to ours.

And very similar across other youth groups we have spoken with.  It may well just be a "teenager thing" as young people experiment with different interests and experiences.  Hard to say.

But it appears that our cadet retention rates are pretty much the same as they have always been.  Can we do better?  I believe so and have worked hard to keep our focus on providing doctrine, tools, and resources to focus on and enhance local Squadron meetings.  Which is where we have over 90% of our cadet contact.

What specific ideas do you have to increase first year cadet retention?

(This probably deserves its own thread, however.)

Ned Lee
National Cadet Orogram Manager

Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2018, 02:40:02 AM »

See https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/resources-and-training/tpp-and-paf-resources/recruitment-retention-and-engagement/index.html

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/sites/default/files/retention_webinar_slides.pdf

N.B. Many SM dislike Social Media. It is a major blind spot. Further, SM policing by upper echelon folks makes the use of same difficult as the "perfect" becomes the enemy of the "good" and shuts down many aspiring efforts at such communication.

This does deserve a stand alone thread.

Logged
Fester
Forum Regular

Posts: 171

« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2018, 03:17:43 AM »

65% First year cadet loss is bloody! We at the local, Wing, and National level must cut those numbers drastically.

I know it "sounds bad,". But that is pretty consistent with our cadet retention rates for several decades.  You may notice that BSA will not publish or release their retention rates, but in private conversations with senior Scout leaders, their experience appears to be very similar to ours.

And very similar across other youth groups we have spoken with.  It may well just be a "teenager thing" as young people experiment with different interests and experiences.  Hard to say.

But it appears that our cadet retention rates are pretty much the same as they have always been.  Can we do better?  I believe so and have worked hard to keep our focus on providing doctrine, tools, and resources to focus on and enhance local Squadron meetings.  Which is where we have over 90% of our cadet contact.

What specific ideas do you have to increase first year cadet retention?

(This probably deserves its own thread, however.)

Ned Lee
National Cadet Orogram Manager

I'm curious where the loss rates come from.  They seem very high.  But I trust them seeing as they come from NIN and seem to be collaborated by Ned.

My question is, why are we losing so many?  Ned has some ideas that seem valid, but do we have any concrete data?  Do we do any outreach after losing a cadet to find out why they left?  It seems like, with the availability of electronic communications these days, that could be an easy task.  Furthermore, wouldn't that first person data make coming up with a strategy to solve the problem so much easier? And more effective?
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,176

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2018, 10:07:42 AM »

The retention rates seem accurate.  How this relates to the selection process for National Command Chief escapes me though.  That said, I'd love to know what this individual is responsible for.  We've had one for the last 10 or so years.  Has there been any "value added"?   
Logged
CAP_truth
Seasoned Member

Posts: 250

« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2018, 11:30:25 AM »

NHQ needs to define what the duties are. I know of an excellent candidate for the position. We need a complete non officer training program within CAP and an increase of the requirements for officers. Every time we lower are standards membership goes down. Bring back the GAM category for non officer membership with lower dues. Then if someone wishes to become an officer they can upgrade their membership. My opinion.   
Logged
Cadet CoP
Wilson
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,929
Unit: of issue

« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2018, 11:59:36 AM »

<snip>
Every time we lower are standards membership goes down. Bring back the GAM category for non officer membership with lower dues. Then if someone wishes to become an officer they can upgrade their membership. My opinion.

I missed the GAM category (I remember it, I just don't recall all the specifics)

But this:
Quote
Every time we lower are standards membership goes down.

Can you be more specific what you mean?

In what way have we "lowered our standards" that has affected membership?
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2018 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,929
Unit: of issue

« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2018, 12:00:26 PM »

The retention rates seem accurate.  How this relates to the selection process for National Command Chief escapes me though.  That said, I'd love to know what this individual is responsible for.  We've had one for the last 10 or so years.  Has there been any "value added"?   

Oh, come on. this is CAPTalk. Topic drift isn't *new* here, right?   8)
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2018 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,176

« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2018, 01:30:19 PM »

The retention rates seem accurate.  How this relates to the selection process for National Command Chief escapes me though.  That said, I'd love to know what this individual is responsible for.  We've had one for the last 10 or so years.  Has there been any "value added"?   

Oh, come on. this is CAPTalk. Topic drift isn't *new* here, right?   8)

In the 15 or so years I've been on this Forum (and its predecessors), I can honestly say.... It's a way of life! >:D ;D
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2018, 03:07:20 PM »


I'm curious where the loss rates come from.  They seem very high.  But I trust them seeing as they come from NIN and seem to be collaborated by Ned.

My question is, why are we losing so many?  Ned has some ideas that seem valid, but do we have any concrete data?  Do we do any outreach after losing a cadet to find out why they left?

I hope it won't surprise you to learn that we regularly survey former members asking these very questions.

In essence, most cadets leave feeling reasonably positive about the program, but the #1 reason listed is "lost / changed interest."  Other top reasons are "moved, new location with no nearby unit.  (About 10-15% of Americans move every year.). "Poor leadership" is listed, but midway down the list in single digits.

When we try to mine down on "lost / changed interest" responses, it is hard tease out meaningful data. Respondents mention competing activities like sports programs, other youth programs, church activities, and concentrating on academics.

Obviously, much of this is out of our control, but there are certainly things we can address:  ensuring that weekly meetings (>90% of our cadet contact time) are vital and engaging instead of "the AE instructor didn't come tonight, so drill around the parking lot."

And we do indeed use the data to drive retention strategies.  We have adjusted the PT program to make sure cadets are far less likely to "stall" at an early stage in their cadet career specifically to engage them in the promotion system and allow for new duties and positions.  We have significantly invested in the encampment program to make it more accessible because one of the strongest indicators for renewal is encampment attendance.

We have specifically addressed the "poor leadership" issue by revamping the TLC program and placing incentives in the system to encourage attendance by CP seniors.  We also made the TLC program itself more accessible by re-designing it into a one day course for most squadron-level CP officers.

We routinely task the NCAC to provide concrete ideas to improve retention and listen carefully to their input.

Obviously, despite a great deal of effort by dedicated CP officers from the local unit and higher, our first year retention numbers remain well below 50%.

I repeat my request:

What specific things can we do to improve retention?

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

(Currently attending the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference at Camp San Luis Obispo with nearly 400 enthusiastic cadets from every wing in PCR.  It is an amazing activity.  But these troops are not the retention problem, it is the 1100 CAWG cadets are not here having a great time.)


Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2018, 03:59:21 PM »

[
I repeat my request:

What specific things can we do to improve retention?

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

(Currently attending the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference at Camp San Luis Obispo with nearly 400 enthusiastic cadets from every wing in PCR.  It is an amazing activity.  But these troops are not the retention problem, it is the 1100 CAWG cadets are not here having a great time.)
Repeat - engage where they are, that means texting and social media. Get the upper echelon perfectionists out of the way! Let the CC at the unit level be the arbiter, not a Wing/Regional/National nitpicker destroy enthusiasm and initiative.
Logged
Fester
Forum Regular

Posts: 171

« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2018, 04:10:33 PM »


I'm curious where the loss rates come from.  They seem very high.  But I trust them seeing as they come from NIN and seem to be collaborated by Ned.

My question is, why are we losing so many?  Ned has some ideas that seem valid, but do we have any concrete data?  Do we do any outreach after losing a cadet to find out why they left?

I hope it won't surprise you to learn that we regularly survey former members asking these very questions.

In essence, most cadets leave feeling reasonably positive about the program, but the #1 reason listed is "lost / changed interest."  Other top reasons are "moved, new location with no nearby unit.  (About 10-15% of Americans move every year.). "Poor leadership" is listed, but midway down the list in single digits.

When we try to mine down on "lost / changed interest" responses, it is hard tease out meaningful data. Respondents mention competing activities like sports programs, other youth programs, church activities, and concentrating on academics.

Obviously, much of this is out of our control, but there are certainly things we can address:  ensuring that weekly meetings (>90% of our cadet contact time) are vital and engaging instead of "the AE instructor didn't come tonight, so drill around the parking lot."

And we do indeed use the data to drive retention strategies.  We have adjusted the PT program to make sure cadets are far less likely to "stall" at an early stage in their cadet career specifically to engage them in the promotion system and allow for new duties and positions.  We have significantly invested in the encampment program to make it more accessible because one of the strongest indicators for renewal is encampment attendance.

We have specifically addressed the "poor leadership" issue by revamping the TLC program and placing incentives in the system to encourage attendance by CP seniors.  We also made the TLC program itself more accessible by re-designing it into a one day course for most squadron-level CP officers.

We routinely task the NCAC to provide concrete ideas to improve retention and listen carefully to their input.

Obviously, despite a great deal of effort by dedicated CP officers from the local unit and higher, our first year retention numbers remain well below 50%.

I repeat my request:

What specific things can we do to improve retention?

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

(Currently attending the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference at Camp San Luis Obispo with nearly 400 enthusiastic cadets from every wing in PCR.  It is an amazing activity.  But these troops are not the retention problem, it is the 1100 CAWG cadets are not here having a great time.)

Awesome.  Thanks for the info, Ned.

Yes, it is "news to me" that we regularly survey former members.  But, in the defense of those at NHQ, I've only rejoined in the last 2 weeks after a 20 year break.  And much has changed.

I'm happy to see that a system is in place for discovering why we retain so few cadets.  I'm not surprised by the data you mention.  And I like the changes that have been made to address the problem.

IMHO, I think one of the things we could do to increase Cadet retention is to TRY to move away from "Senior Squadrons" and "Cadet Squadrons" and to really strive to focus on Composite Squadrons as the basic local unit level.  I don't have the data to support it, but I would bet that Cadets in Cadet Squadrons don't get the opportunities for O'Rides or flight training that those in Composite Squadrons do.  And I've always believed that flight time is a HUGE factor in Cadet retention.

In the town I live in, there is both a Senior Squadron and a Cadet Squadron.  Both located at the local airport.  I don't understand why.  The reason is "well, not every Senior wants to participate in the CP."  I'm sorry, but that's one of our 3 missions.  Why join an organization when you're not wanting to support 1/3 of what that organization does?
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2018, 04:23:41 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.
Logged
Fester
Forum Regular

Posts: 171

« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2018, 04:28:45 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.

Only 9 of 25 units in my Wing are.
Logged
GaryVC
Forum Regular

Posts: 183
Unit: PCR-NV-070

« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2018, 06:33:38 PM »

This thread has drifted (what's new?). In the Nevada wing there are 15 squadrons. Two are or were school squadrons (cadet squadrons).  There is one senior squadron and the rest are composite squadrons. We meet at the same place as the senior squadron and we are now doing ES activities with them.  I learned recently that some senior members are actually afraid of cadets because of the cadet protection policy. If there is a cure for that, it is to have them work with our cadets in Emergency Services.

(Some of our cadets are attending the California Wing Cadet Program Conference the weekend. I hope they said hello to Col Lee.)

Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2018, 07:39:02 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.

Only 9 of 25 units in my Wing are.
And that has nothing to do with Cadet retention rates.
Logged
Fester
Forum Regular

Posts: 171

« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2018, 08:22:11 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.

Only 9 of 25 units in my Wing are.
And that has nothing to do with Cadet retention rates.

I respectfully disagree. 

How successful would you imagine a Cadet Squadron with NO aircraft, NO pilots, and especially with NO O'Ride pilots is at getting O'Rides for their Cadets?  And I'm pretty sure we can all agree that flight time is a HUGE factor in retention.
Logged
Fester
Forum Regular

Posts: 171

« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2018, 08:22:54 PM »

It may not be an issue for you or your wing.  But I'm willing to bet a few bucks that it IS an issue for some.
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2018, 08:32:24 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.

Only 9 of 25 units in my Wing are.
And that has nothing to do with Cadet retention rates.

I respectfully disagree. 

How successful would you imagine a Cadet Squadron with NO aircraft, NO pilots, and especially with NO O'Ride pilots is at getting O'Rides for their Cadets?  And I'm pretty sure we can all agree that flight time is a HUGE factor in retention.

Reality says otherwise.  There are plenty of composite and cadet squadrons who are successful without pilots and without aircraft and without o-rides. 

And hate to break it to you but participation is not required in all three areas members are free to choose their areas of participation.
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2018, 02:55:54 AM »

It may not be an issue for you or your wing.  But I'm willing to bet a few bucks that it IS an issue for some.
Data? Or just noise?
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2018, 02:58:29 AM »

It may not be an issue for you or your wing.  But I'm willing to bet a few bucks that it IS an issue for some.

BTW I came from an urban cadet squadron, no aircraft. We had O-rides. I got a flight school scholarship. Most of my cadets were inner city Hispanics who went on to do awesome things.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,402

« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2018, 11:46:58 AM »

Just curious as to the status of the last or incumbent Command Chief...
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,650

« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2018, 11:59:21 AM »

Just curious as to the status of the last or incumbent Command Chief...
Work and Real Life got in the way of his volunteerism. 
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2018, 05:45:32 PM »

Every unit in my Wing is a composite squadron. That is not the issue.

Only 9 of 25 units in my Wing are.
And that has nothing to do with Cadet retention rates.

I respectfully disagree. 

How successful would you imagine a Cadet Squadron with NO aircraft, NO pilots, and especially with NO O'Ride pilots is at getting O'Rides for their Cadets?  And I'm pretty sure we can all agree that flight time is a HUGE factor in retention.

I am a former commander of a cadet squadron with NO aircraft and NO pilots and it was a very successful program before my time and after I left.  It has produced 8 Spaatz cadets in 5 years and also the National Cadet of the Year once.  They have won too many wing and Region Cadet and Color Guard competitions to count and consistently have one of the highest 0-ride rates in the Wing.  We have at least a dozen cadet either go to an Academy or accept a full ROTC scholarship.  Over the last 10 years the cadet attendance has been between 25 and 40 cadets with about 50-60 on the books and rarely more than 3 Senior Members actively participating.

It can be done.
Logged
capmaj
Seasoned Member

Posts: 296

« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2018, 05:48:17 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2018, 05:58:52 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

SSgt.  From CAPR 35-5 Section 6, "Professional Development levels and time-in-grade requirements are non-waiverable. Request for waivers based on duty performance may be requested. The request should include a CAP Form 2 as well as letter of justification. All waivers to duty position requirements for the grades of senior NCOs (MSgt, SMSgt, CMSgt) must be submitted along with supporting documentation through the region commander to the National Commander."
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2018, 06:01:23 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

There's a conversion matrix that would determine that based upon the Officer grade and PD accomplished. 
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2018, 06:10:02 PM »



There's a conversion matrix that would determine that based upon the Officer grade and PD accomplished.

Where is this matrix?  There is nothing in 35-5 about officer to NCO transition that I could find.
Logged
darkmatter
Forum Regular

Posts: 158

« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2018, 06:21:46 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

E-5 is what you would start out as but then you could move up E-6 through 9 with in cap
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2018, 06:40:20 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

E-5 is what you would start out as but then you could move up E-6 through 9 with in cap

Wrong.
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2018, 06:43:41 PM »

See attached signed by CAP/CC and CAP/CCE.  So following this based upon my current CAP grade,  PD level, time in CAP and military grade if I were inclined to transition to NCO grade it would be MSgt.

The good LtCol who asked the question would transition to SMSgt. 
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 06:47:30 PM by abdsp51 » Logged
Ozzy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 360
Unit: GA

« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2018, 06:51:46 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

E-5 is what you would start out as but then you could move up E-6 through 9 with in cap

Wrong.

Yes and no.... yes they would normally stay as an SSgt when they switch to the enlisted ranks however there is, until the 28th a "recruiting" drive for CAP Officers who were RM NCOs to go over to the enlisted side. So the Lt Col who was an E-5 could possibly be granted SMSgt or MSgt.
Logged
Ozyilmaz, TSgt, CAP
C/Lt. Colonel (Ret.)

NYWG Encampment 07, 08, 09, 10, 17
CTWG Encampment 09, 11, 16
NER Cadet Leadership School 10
GAWG NCOA 18
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2018, 06:57:13 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

E-5 is what you would start out as but then you could move up E-6 through 9 with in cap

Wrong.

Yes and no.... yes they would normally stay as an SSgt when they switch to the enlisted ranks however there is, until the 28th a "recruiting" drive for CAP Officers who were RM NCOs to go over to the enlisted side. So the Lt Col who was an E-5 could possibly be granted SMSgt or MSgt.
What is the long term intent and strategy for the CAP NCO program?
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2018, 06:57:49 PM »

Drifting mildly back on to the topic..... a question. If a CAP Lt Col, Level V, who is an honorably discharged E-5 veteran, wanted to convert to NCO status, what would be his or her NCO grade in CAP? Would they remain at E-5 upon entry or would a higher NCO grade be granted?

E-5 is what you would start out as but then you could move up E-6 through 9 with in cap

Wrong.

Yes and no.... yes they would normally stay as an SSgt when they switch to the enlisted ranks however there is, until the 28th a "recruiting" drive for CAP Officers who were RM NCOs to go over to the enlisted side. So the Lt Col who was an E-5 could possibly be granted SMSgt or MSgt.

Disagree.  NHQ would be off their rocker to screw over long term committed members to make them start at the bottom again especially if they are transitioning over from FGO.  Otherwise there would be no incentive for them to switch.  And one of the key items now of the NCO program grants them the opportunity to promote in CAP even if they don't promote in the military or left at a particular grade.
Logged
grunt82abn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 243

« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2018, 07:16:50 PM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Sean Riley, TSGT
US Army 1987 to 1994, WIARNG 1994 to 2008
DoD Firefighter Paramedic 2000 to Present
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2018, 07:25:21 PM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have a nearly 80 year history as a proud part of the Air Force family. The ranks and uniforms help us honor that past and realize the reality of today's USAF assigned missions.  I could not disagree more with your idea. OTOH if you do not want to use your rank, you can wear corporate uniforms and simply "do the job" (and I have no doubt you do!) But getting rid of SM ranks would be a mistake in my opinion. YMMV.
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,176

« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2018, 07:31:50 PM »

What is the long term intent and strategy for the CAP NCO program?

The long term intent and strategy of the CAP NCO program is to be one of the three discussion missions of CAPTalk... The others being cadet programs and uniforms. YMMV ;D
Logged
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2018, 07:33:39 PM »

What is the long term intent and strategy for the CAP NCO program?

The long term intent and strategy of the CAP NCO program is to be one of the three discussion missions of CAPTalk... The others being cadet programs and uniforms. YMMV ;D
:)

But never politics!
Logged
grunt82abn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 243

« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2018, 07:48:30 PM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have a nearly 80 year history as a proud part of the Air Force family. The ranks and uniforms help us honor that past and realize the reality of today's USAF assigned missions.  I could not disagree more with your idea. OTOH if you do not want to use your rank, you can wear corporate uniforms and simply "do the job" (and I have no doubt you do!) But getting rid of SM ranks would be a mistake in my opinion. YMMV.

I get the history, don’t understand how it helps us realize the reality of today’s mission. Commanders intent and the mission statement make that clear, what we wear doesn’t. I work for the US Navy as a civilian, don’t wear the Navy uniform, but have a clear understanding of the reality of the assigned DoD mission. Again it was me thinking out load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Sean Riley, TSGT
US Army 1987 to 1994, WIARNG 1994 to 2008
DoD Firefighter Paramedic 2000 to Present
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 438
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2018, 09:01:00 PM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have a nearly 80 year history as a proud part of the Air Force family. The ranks and uniforms help us honor that past and realize the reality of today's USAF assigned missions.  I could not disagree more with your idea. OTOH if you do not want to use your rank, you can wear corporate uniforms and simply "do the job" (and I have no doubt you do!) But getting rid of SM ranks would be a mistake in my opinion. YMMV.

I get the history, don’t understand how it helps us realize the reality of today’s mission. Commanders intent and the mission statement make that clear, what we wear doesn’t. I work for the US Navy as a civilian, don’t wear the Navy uniform, but have a clear understanding of the reality of the assigned DoD mission. Again it was me thinking out load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of our missions is the Cadet Program. Uniforms are a tool. And we have choices. If you want, you may wear a corporate style uniform and eschew the military look.
Logged
J2H
Seasoned Member

Posts: 200
Unit: MER-MD-031

« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2018, 09:37:10 PM »

I'm considering joining with my E-5 from the AF.
Logged
SSgt Jeffrey Hughes, Squadron NCO
Glenn L. Martin Composite Squadron MD-031
#217169
ColonelJack
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,362
Unit: SER-GA-153

« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2018, 07:12:41 AM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have a nearly 80 year history as a proud part of the Air Force family. The ranks and uniforms help us honor that past and realize the reality of today's USAF assigned missions.  I could not disagree more with your idea. OTOH if you do not want to use your rank, you can wear corporate uniforms and simply "do the job" (and I have no doubt you do!) But getting rid of SM ranks would be a mistake in my opinion. YMMV.

I get the history, don’t understand how it helps us realize the reality of today’s mission. Commanders intent and the mission statement make that clear, what we wear doesn’t. I work for the US Navy as a civilian, don’t wear the Navy uniform, but have a clear understanding of the reality of the assigned DoD mission. Again it was me thinking out load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of our missions is the Cadet Program. Uniforms are a tool. And we have choices. If you want, you may wear a corporate style uniform and eschew the military look.

To be honest, I've often wondered why someone who does not like uniforms, rank, military traditions, etc., would join an organization that is set up along those lines.  But that's just me.

Jack
Logged
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., Civil Air Patrol
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
grunt82abn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 243

« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2018, 08:26:20 AM »

Maybe we should do away with all senior member rank! No Officers, no NCO’s, just senior members serving for the betterment of the organization, system to better serve its goals. Senior members would just be that, unless you were a CC, then that would be the only rank that you would hold. Give SM rates of duty position titles like Emergency Services officer, Logistics officer for those that head up those areas and keep the technician, senior,  and master to show your area of skill and knowledge (for lack of a better word). This would allow us to focus on the mission at hand versus how much rank we have or the arguments of why this group is this way or why that groups gets this and we don’t. It would also keep those out there who like to threaten, bully and badger other senior members because they think their rank actually entitles them to belittle those who are supposedly beneath them. Just a thought!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have a nearly 80 year history as a proud part of the Air Force family. The ranks and uniforms help us honor that past and realize the reality of today's USAF assigned missions.  I could not disagree more with your idea. OTOH if you do not want to use your rank, you can wear corporate uniforms and simply "do the job" (and I have no doubt you do!) But getting rid of SM ranks would be a mistake in my opinion. YMMV.

I get the history, don’t understand how it helps us realize the reality of today’s mission. Commanders intent and the mission statement make that clear, what we wear doesn’t. I work for the US Navy as a civilian, don’t wear the Navy uniform, but have a clear understanding of the reality of the assigned DoD mission. Again it was me thinking out load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of our missions is the Cadet Program. Uniforms are a tool. And we have choices. If you want, you may wear a corporate style uniform and eschew the military look.

To be honest, I've often wondered why someone who does not like uniforms, rank, military traditions, etc., would join an organization that is set up along those lines.  But that's just me.

Jack
Never said I didn’t like any of those you mentioned above but then again my first priority is the mission; It’s not the wearing of trinkets, bells and whistles. I truly believe in the CAP mission, and get it accomplished regardless of what I  chose to wear.

My tools aren’t the uniform, it’s the Military Bearing, the command presence, tactical mindset, and the professionalism I was taught by men and women far better than me when I was enlisted. I try and perform in CAP by the principles I was taught and conduct my actions by following the NCO creed, not the 39-1 telling me what I have the option to wear.

I offered up a thought, an opinion, not a statement of fact of why I joined CAP. My point is that the uniform, rank, and ribbons don’t make someone more proficient of a SM, and sure in heck doesn’t give a person the ability to be an effective leader, those traits are instilled. They don’t magically appear because of what you are wearing. Thanks for your opinion!

Sean



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Sean Riley, TSGT
US Army 1987 to 1994, WIARNG 1994 to 2008
DoD Firefighter Paramedic 2000 to Present
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,176

« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2018, 08:58:22 AM »

What is the long term intent and strategy for the CAP NCO program?

The long term intent and strategy of the CAP NCO program is to be one of the three discussion missions of CAPTalk... The others being cadet programs and uniforms. YMMV ;D
:)

But never politics!
I have misspoke; the long term intent and strategy of the CAP NCO program is to have another reason to switch the discussion to uniform threads... >:D
Logged
ColonelJack
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,362
Unit: SER-GA-153

« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2018, 07:06:36 PM »

Quote
Never said I didn’t like any of those you mentioned above but then again my first priority is the mission; It’s not the wearing of trinkets, bells and whistles. I truly believe in the CAP mission, and get it accomplished regardless of what I  chose to wear.

My tools aren’t the uniform, it’s the Military Bearing, the command presence, tactical mindset, and the professionalism I was taught by men and women far better than me when I was enlisted. I try and perform in CAP by the principles I was taught and conduct my actions by following the NCO creed, not the 39-1 telling me what I have the option to wear.

I offered up a thought, an opinion, not a statement of fact of why I joined CAP. My point is that the uniform, rank, and ribbons don’t make someone more proficient of a SM, and sure in heck doesn’t give a person the ability to be an effective leader, those traits are instilled. They don’t magically appear because of what you are wearing. Thanks for your opinion!

Well, you're welcome, of course.  I wasn't specifically referring to you, though your opinion of giving up rank, etc., did make me wonder.

And I thank you for that opinion.  It's refreshing.

I was referring to some of our other compadres, though, who've all but called for doing away with the "trinkets, bells and whistles."  Not all of CAP's members are a part of the organization for altruistic reasons.  Back in the day, when I taught Personnel classes at SLS and CLC events, I always reminded my students that, in CAP, the Personnel officer is the closest thing we have to a paymaster.  Beyond the good feeling one gets for doing the job and doing it right, rank and awards (or trinkets, bells, and whistles, if you will) are the only compensation we receive.  (Of course, you already know that.)

While I don't include you specifically in my original question, I do still wonder why some people would join a military-styled organization and then complain about the military aspects of it.  That, I may never understand.

Jack
Logged
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., Civil Air Patrol
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #59 on: February 20, 2018, 09:35:53 PM »

While I don't include you specifically in my original question, I do still wonder why some people would join a military-styled organization and then complain about the military aspects of it.  That, I may never understand.

Maybe I'm wearing rose colored glasses, but I think the complaints only come in when the "military aspects" waste a volunteer's time, or even worse impact mission performance. Really the only "military aspects" we run into are uniforms and a mostly irrelevant grade structure (to bring this back around to the alleged need for a command chief), which can certainly irritate those who find other aspects of CAP more interesting.

What's of course important to remember is in the Venn diagram of people who were attracted by wearing military uniforms (without having to be in the military) and people who couldn't care less about uniforms, there's still a large overlap between the two groups of other aspects that were also contributing factors on joining CAP. The two groups have more in common than not, but still get hung up on the differences.

People see what they want to see when it comes to recruiting. The folks that dig wearing military uniforms see a wonderful opportunity, people who don't dig military uniforms see people wearing polo shirts. Really it's win-win, yet the argument rages on.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,402

« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2018, 10:40:33 AM »

While I don't include you specifically in my original question, I do still wonder why some people would join a military-styled organization and then complain about the military aspects of it.  That, I may never understand.

Maybe I'm wearing rose colored glasses, but I think the complaints only come in when the "military aspects" waste a volunteer's time, or even worse impact mission performance. Really the only "military aspects" we run into are uniforms and a mostly irrelevant grade structure (to bring this back around to the alleged need for a command chief), which can certainly irritate those who find other aspects of CAP more interesting.

What's of course important to remember is in the Venn diagram of people who were attracted by wearing military uniforms (without having to be in the military) and people who couldn't care less about uniforms, there's still a large overlap between the two groups of other aspects that were also contributing factors on joining CAP. The two groups have more in common than not, but still get hung up on the differences.

People see what they want to see when it comes to recruiting. The folks that dig wearing military uniforms see a wonderful opportunity, people who don't dig military uniforms see people wearing polo shirts. Really it's win-win, yet the argument rages on.

I agree with the bulk of this post.

I do, however, want to extend a thought that the role of the NCO, particularly the senior-most in the organization, does bring in some military bearing with it, particularly considering that military service is a pre-requisite.

So there is a time and place for "military-isms" in CAP. It's not every aspect, but there is an appropriate moment here and there. I think the key is in reinforcing corps values (yes, corps), unity, and mission. That bearing can help with this.
Logged
Brit_in_CAP
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394
Unit: MER-VA-002

« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2018, 12:20:28 PM »

While I don't include you specifically in my original question, I do still wonder why some people would join a military-styled organization and then complain about the military aspects of it.  That, I may never understand.

Jack

Likewise. 

Was going to write more and decided to not write.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NHQ looking for the next National Command Chief of CAP
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.093 seconds with 25 queries.