Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2018, 01:25:49 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Uniform -- Too Many Ribbons and Badges (A cadet perspective)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: Cadet Uniform -- Too Many Ribbons and Badges (A cadet perspective)  (Read 2458 times)
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,062

« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2018, 08:18:12 PM »

CAP follows the USAF lead and the USAF loves to hang stuff on uniforms.

The Air Force has nothing on the Army in it's love of hanging a lot of stuff on their uniforms.
Logged
Thor3785
Newbie

Posts: 3

« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2018, 08:24:28 PM »

Maybe I've met a few too many unreliable cadets during my time in CAP.  But hey, for the ones who are mature enough, and have proven themselves dependable, I'd be fine with giving it a shot :) (Maybe a lower age requirement would be added, though, I'd say 16 or 17 plus)

Yeah, I thought about adding an age requirement on my proposal but realized that I shouldn't limit young, mature cadets. Their chain of command should be the gatekeepers anyway. There are a lot of great experiences I have had that people have proposed age restrictions on. Controversial and a different topic, but I got my Eaker when I was 15. People have proposed age restrictions on milestones. Again, if a cadet is promoting past his knowledge/maturity, then his/her CDC shouldn't let them promote.
Logged
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2018, 08:34:37 PM »

Maybe I've met a few too many unreliable cadets during my time in CAP.  But hey, for the ones who are mature enough, and have proven themselves dependable, I'd be fine with giving it a shot :) (Maybe a lower age requirement would be added, though, I'd say 16 or 17 plus)

Yeah, I thought about adding an age requirement on my proposal but realized that I shouldn't limit young, mature cadets. Their chain of command should be the gatekeepers anyway. There are a lot of great experiences I have had that people have proposed age restrictions on. Controversial and a different topic, but I got my Eaker when I was 15. People have proposed age restrictions on milestones. Again, if a cadet is promoting past his knowledge/maturity, then his/her CDC shouldn't let them promote.

That's true, said commander/CDC shouldn't let them promote.  But its not always the case, unfortunately, I've seen it happen a few times.  On the other note,  prehaps age limit --or-- special permission approved by the unit/group and wing commander for those cadets under the age limit?  Just to put a two layer protection on it.  I don't know, its a hard call.

Edit:  For clarification.
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 889

« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2018, 09:08:33 PM »

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
Logged
CAP9907
Member

Posts: 54
Unit: NER-000

« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2018, 09:33:24 PM »

Can you quantify those last criteria or is it entirely subjective?

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
Logged
16 yrs of service
Vegas1972
Member

Posts: 52
Unit: PCR-NV

« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2018, 09:44:19 PM »

On a side note, you might have a real good start on an advocacy paper for an SDA if you havenít already done that one. 
Logged
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.", Sgt. John M. Stryker.
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,619

« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2018, 03:00:03 AM »

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
If they are meeting the "minimums" then they are ready for promotion.  Maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher level are all part of the minimums.

Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,619

« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2018, 03:11:10 AM »

Remember that in the AF, a 2nd LT is about as new as an Airman Basic, so they won't have as many ribbons, they don't normally go from Enlisted up to LT like Cadets do.

Missed one!  Sorry, Sgt.

Yes, this is certainly true.  It still seems awkward that a cadet officer can walk around with potentially as many ribbons as a 4 star general.

It is not the count....but what they are that matters.

While I agree with the original poster's sentiment...we could trim down the ribbons a bit.   At the end of the day they are just a resume of your CAP life and nothing else.   Comparing CAP members with AD service members.....why we should just as well as compare ourselves to California Highway Patrolmen or NYPD or the boy scouts....or any other organization that uses bling to denote BTDT/RANK/HONORS or what not.   

As someone pointed out.....at high school and university graduation the graduates have all sorts of cords, sashes and doo-dads on the gown to denote activities, honors and such.   Might as well as compare them to CAP.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2018, 09:34:38 AM »

Remember that in the AF, a 2nd LT is about as new as an Airman Basic, so they won't have as many ribbons, they don't normally go from Enlisted up to LT like Cadets do.

Missed one!  Sorry, Sgt.

Yes, this is certainly true.  It still seems awkward that a cadet officer can walk around with potentially as many ribbons as a 4 star general.

It is not the count....but what they are that matters.

While I agree with the original poster's sentiment...we could trim down the ribbons a bit.   At the end of the day they are just a resume of your CAP life and nothing else.   Comparing CAP members with AD service members.....why we should just as well as compare ourselves to California Highway Patrolmen or NYPD or the boy scouts....or any other organization that uses bling to denote BTDT/RANK/HONORS or what not.   

As someone pointed out.....at high school and university graduation the graduates have all sorts of cords, sashes and doo-dads on the gown to denote activities, honors and such.   Might as well as compare them to CAP.


Thank you for the support, Sgt.!  Yes, my main argument was that most of the promotion ribbons have no real meaning, since promotions come with stripes/circles/diamonds anyway (except curry and milestones) and only serve to inflate the size of cadet's ribbon racks (and sometimes, unfortunately, ego).  The argument of quantity and look on the uniform was intended to be secondary.
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 889

« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2018, 09:40:41 AM »

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
If they are meeting the "minimums" then they are ready for promotion.  Maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher level are all part of the minimums.

While I agree with your comment that is not what I see in practice.  The minimums that I was referring to are just the check boxes like CPFT and testing. 

Can you quantify those last criteria or is it entirely subjective?

It is very difficult to quantify those things.  A good rule of thumb would be for example, if a cadet is struggling to be a flight sergeant then they probably are not ready to be a flight commander.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,619

« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2018, 09:44:09 AM »

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
If they are meeting the "minimums" then they are ready for promotion.  Maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher level are all part of the minimums.

While I agree with your comment that is not what I see in practice.  The minimums that I was referring to are just the check boxes like CPFT and testing. 

Can you quantify those last criteria or is it entirely subjective?

It is very difficult to quantify those things.  A good rule of thumb would be for example, if a cadet is struggling to be a flight sergeant then they probably are not ready to be a flight commander.
If you know of commanders who are cutting corners....then it is your duty to confront him/her and/or report them to next higher commander.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2018, 09:55:52 AM »

From what I have seen most squadrons promote people (cadets and SM) when the minimum requirements are met with no regard to if the person has the maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher grade.
If they are meeting the "minimums" then they are ready for promotion.  Maturity, skill, leadership potential, etc to succeed at the next higher level are all part of the minimums.

While I agree with your comment that is not what I see in practice.  The minimums that I was referring to are just the check boxes like CPFT and testing. 

Can you quantify those last criteria or is it entirely subjective?

It is very difficult to quantify those things.  A good rule of thumb would be for example, if a cadet is struggling to be a flight sergeant then they probably are not ready to be a flight commander.
If you know of commanders who are cutting corners....then it is your duty to confront him/her and/or report them to next higher commander.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cadet who would be comfortable and confident enough confronting and/or in a very serious situation of mismanagement, reporting their unit commander to a group/wing commander or inspector general's office, if such corners were being cut.  Senior members might feel more comfortable executing that duty, and I'm assuming that you were referring to them, not cadets, but correct me if I'm wrong.

C/2lt Starbird
Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,804
Unit: Earth

« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2018, 10:03:29 AM »

Before, I start this, I did want to point out that C/2lt, nor C/2LT is the correct abbreviation.  It should be C/2d Lt (without a period).


I know that it is not intended to convey any political affiliation, sir, merely signifying that the cadet wearing it is proficient and accurate in the use of firearms (which is a good thing, but I might add that weapons/combat training for cadets is not a priority in CAP),

The NRA training or any firearms activities are not priorities in the cadet program.  Which is why these activities are optional.  Many squadrons do not participate in either of these.  In addition, many encampments do not either.  Of course, there are some squadrons and encampments that do, but that does not make it a priority.  Just a fun optional activity. 


Quote
however, I fear that it could be perceived  the wrong way.  Who knows which cadet's parents might be offended when their cadet asks them to sign the activity waver and/or comes home wearing the badge, just because said parent takes issue with the NRA and is offended that Civil Air Patrol is involved with the organization in any way, even if it is just in the form of an awarded badge.  It sounds crazy, but, crazier things have happened.  I understand that everyone may not agree, but in this day and age with our turbulent political climate, personally, I would avoid wearing wearing anything with the letters 'NRA' on it whilst trying to remain politically neutral.  I agree, it should be a non-factor.  Maybe I'm being overly cautious...

You are most definitely being overly cautious.  If the parents are offended by the NRA activity or firearms training, in general, then so be it.  They have a few options.  The best of which is communication.  Both the Squadron and the parents should be communicating.  Something I did a lot of when organizing Firearms training for cadets as a Squadron Commander.  It cleared up a lot from the parents.  Of course, that does not mean that if the parents do not like it, then the squadron should not do it and vice versa.  Rather, it means that misconceptions should be cleared up.  If the parents are still "offended" by it, then they can either deny their child the ability to go or withdraw their child from the cadet program.  It is up to them.  But because a parent "might be offended" is a non-factor, in this case.  Should CAP cut their AmazonSmile because Amazon lobbys in Washington and that might offend a parent?  Or perhaps we should pull all CAP Facebook pages over the data misuse "#deletefacebook"?  These are all non-factors as they do not affiliate CAP politically to any of the company's lobbying or misuse practices.  And as full disclosure, I do not like the current form of the NRA, but I am a proud firearms user and owner.

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/AmazonSmile_7673EC8F6DA2D.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/23/amazon-facebook-and-google-beef-up-lobbying-spending/?utm_term=.3c4b34c02e74
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amazon-lobbying/
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-data-harvesting-scandal-widens-87-million-people-n862771


Quote
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, sir.  Yes, the training requirements are the same. 

And realistically that is all that matters in this case.

Quote
But the badge should represent the rating and the operational responsibilities to go along with that, which I will note not are not expected of cadets. 

Fun fact, the USAF and the USA use the same badge to mean two different things.  The Parachutist badge, in the Army, means Airborne qualified, while the Parachutist badge in the USAF can mean either Airborne qualified or USAFA Skydive Free Fall school.  While I like to raz the Airman with the USAFA program, it is what it is and life moves forward.  In the end, I was Airborne qualified and he/she was not.

Also, while the Officer and Enlisted earn the same specialty badges, that does not mean their responsibilities and/or authorities are the same.  The officer has a different job from the enlisted, yet they earn the same badge.  Of course, there are some exceptions (pilot vs aircrew wings; missile badges, medical), but for most specialties (meteorology, history, etc) the badges are the same.

Quote
I fail to see when it would be appropriate for a cadet, not a senior member who actually holds the tech rating, to preform duties 1, 4, and 5.  Such responsibilities should be left to the adult leader member.
The other duties are preformed under direct supervision from a SM ES Officer.  Such responsibilities should be left to the adult leader member.

Since cadets do not preform all of these duties, and none without supervision, and are not expected to, I honestly do not find it appropriate for them to wear the ES Tech badge. 

The badges do not mean that the cadet should be doing these things unsupervised.  Rather the ES badge represents that the cadet has the ability to perform these items.  Of course, even a SM ES Officer will not be performing these duties unsupervised.  They too answer to the Squadron Commander and to Wing Commander, and by virtue of extension the Wing ES Officer.  Put Group in there if applicable. 

So, if the cadet is unable to perform such duties unsupervised, even if he/she will not actually be performing duties unsupervised, then that cadet should not earn the ES badge.

In regards to cadets performing duties 1, 4, and 5--yes, cadets should be performing these duties as an assistant to the ES Officer.  In #1, there is nothing that states that cadets cannot go with the ES Officer to develop a professional relationship with agencies.  A new SM working on his/her ES tech also needs to learn as well.  As such, they too will not be going without supervision to build new relationships with other agencies.  So, I do not see any issue with cadets performing this. 

As far as number 4, they are only implementing Wing's plan, not developing it.  So no issue with cadets performing this.  There are some duties that cadets can easily perform and some duties that need some supervision.  If that is the case, then the SM ES Officer will assist, as they would assist with a new SM learning the ES track.

As far as number 5--why cannot cadets maintain records with the help of the logistics and/or communications officer?

Interestingly, I performed essentially all of these duties when I was a cadet and working on the ES badge.  When I was working on the Communications badge, I also performed the same duties as the SM Comm Officer with his supervision.  Granted, I did not have any of the same authority, but had plenty of responsibility.  So I do not see any issue with cadets earning the specialty track badges.

Quote
As I mentioned above, there are no other badges, with these odd exceptions, that allow cadets to earn them without the full responsibility and qualification that comes along with them.

Ground Team.  Just because a cadet has earned the GT Badge does not mean they have full responsibility and qualification that comes with the badge.  They are still supervised by a GTL and by a SM (whom may or may not be GTL qualified).  Even if the SM is not a GTL, the SM is still responsible for that Ground Team.  Cadet ground teams with a cadet GTL cannot be dispatched without a SM to supervise.  Therefore, using your logic, cadets should not earn the GT badge either. 
« Last Edit: April 09, 2018, 10:15:23 AM by LSThiker » Logged
Nor'easter
Seasoned Member

Posts: 393

« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2018, 10:15:10 AM »

C/2d Lt Starbird,

I echo much of your sentiment and, like NIN, admire your points and the work that went into this post. Currently, NH-056 has no representatives to the Cadet Advisory Council (CAC), but an enthusiastic and well-read cadet like yourself would be a great asset to our team! To help make a difference and spearhead the improvements you want to see in our Cadet Program, I'd highly encourage you to talk to your leadership about the opportunity to be one of your unit's representatives to the CAC.

Feel free to private message me if you have any questions.

-Nor'easter, NHWG CAC Senior Advisor
Logged
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right...
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2018, 11:57:18 AM »

Before, I start this, I did want to point out that C/2lt, nor C/2LT is the correct abbreviation.  It should be C/2d Lt (without a period).

Awkward... goes to show how long I've been a cadet officer.... although I should have known all the abbreviations, anyway.  Thank you for setting me straight.

Quote
I know that it is not intended to convey any political affiliation, sir, merely signifying that the cadet wearing it is proficient and accurate in the use of firearms (which is a good thing, but I might add that weapons/combat training for cadets is not a priority in CAP),

The NRA training or any firearms activities are not priorities in the cadet program.  Which is why these activities are optional.  Many squadrons do not participate in either of these.  In addition, many encampments do not either.  Of course, there are some squadrons and encampments that do, but that does not make it a priority.  Just a fun optional activity. 


Quote
however, I fear that it could be perceived  the wrong way.  Who knows which cadet's parents might be offended when their cadet asks them to sign the activity waver and/or comes home wearing the badge, just because said parent takes issue with the NRA and is offended that Civil Air Patrol is involved with the organization in any way, even if it is just in the form of an awarded badge.  It sounds crazy, but, crazier things have happened.  I understand that everyone may not agree, but in this day and age with our turbulent political climate, personally, I would avoid wearing anything with the letters 'NRA' on it whilst trying to remain politically neutral.  I agree, it should be a non-factor.  Maybe I'm being overly cautious...

You are most definitely being overly cautious.  If the parents are offended by the NRA activity or firearms training, in general, then so be it.  They have a few options.  The best of which is communication.  Both the Squadron and the parents should be communicating.  Something I did a lot of when organizing Firearms training for cadets as a Squadron Commander.  It cleared up a lot from the parents.  Of course, that does not mean that if the parents do not like it, then the squadron should not do it and vice versa.  Rather, it means that misconceptions should be cleared up.  If the parents are still "offended" by it, then they can either deny their child the ability to go or withdraw their child from the cadet program.  It is up to them.  But because a parent "might be offended" is a non-factor, in this case.  Should CAP cut their AmazonSmile because Amazon lobbys in Washington and that might offend a parent?  Or perhaps we should pull all CAP Facebook pages over the data misuse "#deletefacebook"?  These are all non-factors as they do not affiliate CAP politically to any of the company's lobbying or misuse practices.  And as full disclosure, I do not like the current form of the NRA, but I am a proud firearms user and owner.

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/AmazonSmile_7673EC8F6DA2D.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/23/amazon-facebook-and-google-beef-up-lobbying-spending/?utm_term=.3c4b34c02e74
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amazon-lobbying/
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-data-harvesting-scandal-widens-87-million-people-n862771

Yeah, you are right here.  I think in a previous post I mentioned that I'd backed away from my original stance.

Quote
Quote
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, sir.  Yes, the training requirements are the same. 

And realistically that is all that matters in this case.

Quote
But the badge should represent the rating and the operational responsibilities to go along with that, which I will note are not expected of cadets. 

Fun fact, the USAF and the USA use the same badge to mean two different things.  The Parachutist badge, in the Army, means Airborne qualified, while the Parachutist badge in the USAF can mean either Airborne qualified or USAFA Skydive Free Fall school.  While I like to raz the Airman with the USAFA program, it is what it is and life moves forward.  In the end, I was Airborne qualified and he/she was not.



Interesting!  Thanks for informing me.  I've backed away from the specialty track badge stance that I had, too.  I'd be fine with cadets who are old enough and have demonstrated responsibility and reliability to serve in specialty tracks, my only concern is the number of unreliable cadets that there are out there (or that I have met, anyway).  There needs to be a hard filter.

Quote

Also, while the Officer and Enlisted earn the same specialty badges, that does not mean their responsibilities and/or authorities are the same.  The officer has a different job from the enlisted, yet they earn the same badge.  Of course, there are some exceptions (pilot vs aircrew wings; missile badges, medical), but for most specialties (meteorology, history, etc) the badges are the same.


I note that USAF air specialty badges have a shield wing center, whilst enlisted wear wings with a circular center (which I think is covered under the list of exceptions you noted).  But yes,  you certainly make a great point here!  I will admit that I did not know as much about quals badges as I thought I did before I make this post.  Good learning experience!

Quote
   

Quote
I fail to see when it would be appropriate for a cadet, not a senior member who actually holds the tech rating, to preform duties 1, 4, and 5.  Such responsibilities should be left to the adult leader member.
The other duties are preformed under direct supervision from a SM ES Officer.  Such responsibilities should be left to the adult leader member.

Since cadets do not preform all of these duties, and none without supervision, and are not expected to, I honestly do not find it appropriate for them to wear the ES Tech badge. 

The badges do not mean that the cadet should be doing these things unsupervised.  Rather the ES badge represents that the cadet has the ability to perform these items.  Of course, even a SM ES Officer will not be performing these duties unsupervised.  They too answer to the Squadron Commander and to Wing Commander, and by virtue of extension the Wing ES Officer.  Put Group in there if applicable. 

So, if the cadet is unable to perform such duties unsupervised, even if he/she will not actually be performing duties unsupervised, then that cadet should not earn the ES badge.

In regards to cadets performing duties 1, 4, and 5--yes, cadets should be performing these duties as an assistant to the ES Officer.  In #1, there is nothing that states that cadets cannot go with the ES Officer to develop a professional relationship with agencies.  A new SM working on his/her ES tech also needs to learn as well.  As such, they too will not be going without supervision to build new relationships with other agencies.  So, I do not see any issue with cadets performing this. 

As far as number 4, they are only implementing Wing's plan, not developing it.  So no issue with cadets performing this.  There are some duties that cadets can easily perform and some duties that need some supervision.  If that is the case, then the SM ES Officer will assist, as they would assist with a new SM learning the ES track.

As far as number 5--why cannot cadets maintain records with the help of the logistics and/or communications officer?

Interestingly, I performed essentially all of these duties when I was a cadet and working on the ES badge.  When I was working on the Communications badge, I also performed the same duties as the SM Comm Officer with his supervision.  Granted, I did not have any of the same authority, but had plenty of responsibility.  So I do not see any issue with cadets earning the specialty track badges.


I misunderstood the level of supervision that is involved,  I assumed that if cadets were granted these ratings that would mean they were doing the exact same job as a senior member,  and not being mentored under one.  And yes,  SMs are supervised by their superiors, just not as directly as cadets are.  Someone also pointed out to me that those tech rated most often serve as an assistant-in-training,  so you are correct, I had misunderstood here.

Quote

Quote
As I mentioned above, there are no other badges, with these odd exceptions, that allow cadets to earn them without the full responsibility and qualification that comes along with them.

Ground Team.  Just because a cadet has earned the GT Badge does not mean they have full responsibility and qualification that comes with the badge.  They are still supervised by a GTL and by a SM (whom may or may not be GTL qualified).  Even if the SM is not a GTL, the SM is still responsible for that Ground Team.  Cadet ground teams with a cadet GTL cannot be dispatched without a SM to supervise.  Therefore, using your logic, cadets should not earn the GT badge either.
[/quote]

Yes, this is true, a senior member has to accompany cadets on any GT mission.  I hadn't seen that as a change of duty responsibility,  as every member of any specific ground team level is qualified for the same duties, but from a safety standpoint, you are absolutely correct.  As far as cadet GTLs are concerned, I had been under the impression that said ground team was under the command of the qualified cadet, if a senior GTL is not present, however, the accompanying senior member could assume control in the case of a serious/endangering safety issue.

I've certainly learned a lot from this thread so far, and that's a good thing!

I apologize for my ignorance.

Respectfully,

C/2d Lt Starbird
Logged
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2018, 12:00:02 PM »

C/2d Lt Starbird,

I echo much of your sentiment and, like NIN, admire your points and the work that went into this post. Currently, NH-056 has no representatives to the Cadet Advisory Council (CAC), but an enthusiastic and well-read cadet like yourself would be a great asset to our team! To help make a difference and spearhead the improvements you want to see in our Cadet Program, I'd highly encourage you to talk to your leadership about the opportunity to be one of your unit's representatives to the CAC.

Feel free to private message me if you have any questions.

-Nor'easter, NHWG CAC Senior Advisor

Thank you, sir!  I'll enquire up my chain of command about the oppertunity, and hopefully things will go well from there!
Logged
Geber
Member

Posts: 68
Unit: NER-VT-009

« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2018, 01:14:00 PM »

Someone also pointed out to me that those tech rated most often serve as an assistant-in-training,  so you are correct, I had misunderstood here.

I wish that were true in my wing. I'm not a commuications tech yet, but just became squadron communications officer. I only have 5 months of CAP service, but 3 decades of ham radio experience and an electrical engineering degree. Several of our other squadron officers in charge of various activities are still working on the tech qualification, and most of us wear a few different hats.

It often isn't a question of the person not actually being fully qualified; more often it's things like a SM with lots of cadet experience who isn't 21 yet, or lack of members qualified to evaluate people on various tasks, and having to wait for a wing exercise to get signed off.
Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,236

« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2018, 03:28:10 PM »

Someone also pointed out to me that those tech rated most often serve as an assistant-in-training,  so you are correct, I had misunderstood here.

I wish that were true in my wing. I'm not a commuications tech yet, but just became squadron communications officer. I only have 5 months of CAP service, but 3 decades of ham radio experience and an electrical engineering degree. Several of our other squadron officers in charge of various activities are still working on the tech qualification, and most of us wear a few different hats.
Like many of us do.

Quote
It often isn't a question of the person not actually being fully qualified; more often it's things like a SM with lots of cadet experience who isn't 21 yet, or lack of members qualified to evaluate people on various tasks, and having to wait for a wing exercise to get signed off.
Specialty track ratings and ES qualifications have different approvals. You don't need to go to a wing exercise to get a specialty track rating - except for those that require an ES qualification, but that's only for that 1 item in the list, not the entire rating. Your commander should be able to sign you off.
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,849
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2018, 08:42:50 PM »

As stated there are a lot of ribbons, badges, and paraphernalia in CAP. But we are merely echoing our USAF overseers. They even have the possibility to graduate from Boot Camp with 4 ribbons without ever having one day of prior service. Two different ribbons for overseas service and one for working with nuclear devices. Of course every AFQT has a different badge-none of which can be told apart from a distance of 5 feet.

Cadet Starbird, please put your proposal into the CAC so that the National CAC can ads their voice. I could see asking that Cadets with the Mitchell or higher  wear only their highest milestone Award and that we ditch the NRA badge. But remember these options are already available under CAPM 39-1. 
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Starbird
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: NER-NH-056

« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2018, 06:49:04 PM »

Ones anonymity is very fragile, it would seem....

C/2d Lt Starbird (although the insignia have still not arrived... formal ceremony pending!)
)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Uniform -- Too Many Ribbons and Badges (A cadet perspective)
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.11 seconds with 25 queries.