Encampment Intensity Split-Off Thread Attempt

As the esteemed esquire Ned alluded to in the other thread, we answered that question and then went off on our own azimuth regarding intensity (mostly focused on the nebulous term "yelling").  I'm pretty passionate about this stuff (encampment is my favorite part of CAP and the part I think does the most good for the most cadets) and think we would be well-served to have an in-depth discussion on it.  If a mod could pull the relevant posts from the other topic onto this one (I assume that's possible but I don't know for sure) I would greatly appreciate it.

We don't do a great job of professionally discussing things like this.  In a perfect world, the Volunteer would be more like a "professional" CAP journal where peers discuss the issues (it mainly serves to recruit the already recruited, but I digress).  So I'd like some feedback on if I'm right, wrong, or anywhere in between and why.

In a nutshell, we need to have a common definition and conditions associated with the raised voice:

- The voice is not raised to the point of injury (to the speaker's vocal cords or the listener's ear).  It also is not to be used in the immediate "bubble" of the listener.  A good rule of thumb (I think, let me know if I'm off base) is that a circle drawn around the listener with the radius being that person's arm-length is a good definition for a "bubble".

- The content is more important than the delivery volume.  Train staff in the relevant information regarding this subject (raise voice at the group, don't single out one person, etc) and this should be a non-issue.

- The raised voice is an intentional tool in the intensity toolbox.  The tools of presence, volume, expectations, and time from https://youtu.be/6GD7wf5kwu4 are an excellent guideline, along with the "Effective Training Box" model I've already stolen.  The tool is selected for a specific reason to accomplish a specific purpose.  It isn't because the cadre member is frustrated and lashing out (this requires mentorship, supervision, and training which should be happening anyway).  Remember, this is a learning experience at all levels.

- The encampment program should be a good entry-level introduction to the military training model.  This means age-appropriate.  This means varying levels of intensity appropriate to the situation.  It does not mean that the raised voice is replaced in the toolbox by Eskimo kisses because their helicopter parents don't want their precious bunnies scolded.  If a cadet never enters a training program again that uses and requires Level 1 intensity, then fine; they can do the cyber NCSAs, COS, etc to their heart's content.  If the first time they ever catch a raised voice is day one of PJOC, you've failed to prepare them. 

- I have little-to-no concern about the cultural changes in today's youth.  Life is still stressful.  100 pounds will be 100 pounds no matter what you try to do to change it.  Cadets are going to have to do some physical, emotional, and mental heavy lifting at some point.  The very least we can do for them is get them to lift the empty bar at the beginning and add appropriate excess weight to push their limits, not just say "we shouldn't lift heavy things anymore, we have cars to carry these things for us today".  Just know your people and don't add so much weight you break them.  Linear progression and progressive overload are not just weightlifting concepts. 

- Cadets want to be challenged.  Many of them join for this kind of thing.  They want to be tested.  I've overheard cadets (that weren't Superman by any stretch) complain that encampment was too easy and a letdown.  If encampment is the full immersion into the cadet experience and we nerf encampment, the cadet program is doomed to failure by logical extension. 

As the esteemed esquire Ned alluded to in the other thread, we answered that question and then went off on our own azimuth regarding intensity (mostly focused on the nebulous term "yelling").  I'm pretty passionate about this stuff (encampment is my favorite part of CAP and the part I think does the most good for the most cadets) and think we would be well-served to have an in-depth discussion on it.  If a mod could pull the relevant posts from the other topic onto this one (I assume that's possible but I don't know for sure) I would greatly appreciate it.

We don't do a great job of professionally discussing things like this.  In a perfect world, the Volunteer would be more like a "professional" CAP journal where peers discuss the issues (it mainly serves to recruit the already recruited, but I digress).  So I'd like some feedback on if I'm right, wrong, or anywhere in between and why.

In a nutshell, we need to have a common definition and conditions associated with the raised voice:

- The voice is not raised to the point of injury (to the speaker's vocal cords or the listener's ear).  It also is not to be used in the immediate "bubble" of the listener.  A good rule of thumb (I think, let me know if I'm off base) is that a circle drawn around the listener with the radius being that person's arm-length is a good definition for a "bubble".

- The content is more important than the delivery volume.  Train staff in the relevant information regarding this subject (raise voice at the group, don't single out one person, etc) and this should be a non-issue.

- The raised voice is an intentional tool in the intensity toolbox.  The tools of presence, volume, expectations, and time from https://youtu.be/6GD7wf5kwu4 are an excellent guideline, along with the "Effective Training Box" model I've already stolen.  The tool is selected for a specific reason to accomplish a specific purpose.  It isn't because the cadre member is frustrated and lashing out (this requires mentorship, supervision, and training which should be happening anyway).  Remember, this is a learning experience at all levels.

- The encampment program should be a good entry-level introduction to the military training model.  This means age-appropriate.  This means varying levels of intensity appropriate to the situation.  It does not mean that the raised voice is replaced in the toolbox by Eskimo kisses because their helicopter parents don't want their precious bunnies scolded.  If a cadet never enters a training program again that uses and requires Level 1 intensity, then fine; they can do the cyber NCSAs, COS, etc to their heart's content.  If the first time they ever catch a raised voice is day one of PJOC, you've failed to prepare them. 

- I have little-to-no concern about the cultural changes in today's youth.  Life is still stressful.  100 pounds will be 100 pounds no matter what you try to do to change it.  Cadets are going to have to do some physical, emotional, and mental heavy lifting at some point.  The very least we can do for them is get them to lift the empty bar at the beginning and add appropriate excess weight to push their limits, not just say "we shouldn't lift heavy things anymore, we have cars to carry these things for us today".  Just know your people and don't add so much weight you break them.  Linear progression and progressive overload are not just weightlifting concepts. 

- Cadets want to be challenged.  Many of them join for this kind of thing.  They want to be tested.  I've overheard cadets (that weren't Superman by any stretch) complain that encampment was too easy and a letdown.  If encampment is the full immersion into the cadet experience and we nerf encampment, the cadet program is doomed to failure by logical extension. 

Nailed it 

Encampment in and of itself is stress inducing not to mention the packed schedule.  You don't need to add to it by yelling or using a raised voice.  And no encampment should not nor is an entry level introduction to military training model. 

Sorry but you can run successful stress inducing and challenging activities without yelling or using raised voices and having a pseudo basic training enviroment. 

I have run successful training events without the senior or caret cadre yelling or using raised voices.  In fact the entire cadet cadre was told at the begining that if they yelled, raised their voice outside of safety reasons or went pseudo DI on their charges they'd be canned and sent home..


Yelling or the tap dance "raised voice" is a dated tool and needs to be placed on the shelf unless there is a safety issue.

Yelling (or demeaning talk of any kind) really doesn't have a place in a youth leadership training organization.  Effective leaders rarely, if ever, have to yell.  In a training environment yelling is used to increase stress to test your ability to perform.  Encampment is not about increasing stress to your breaking point.  It is a teaching environment.

The purpose of encampment is not to introduce cadets to a military training model, it is to introduce them to CAP and teach them the basics of being a cadet (marching, uniform, customs, etc.).  Unless you are dealing with a life or death situation I do not see the need for yelling at a student. 

Please do not try and compare military basic training with encampment.  They have different goals and are dealing with adults.  Encampment is not a tool to separate quality people from everyone else like basic training is.  Encampment is an event to teach young teens to be a CAP cadet.  It also has to deal with a huge rang of maturity levels and must fit all levels. 

No matter how difficult you make encampment there will always be cadets who found it too easy and cadets who found it too hard.  When I was in USAF basic training I found it to be way too easy but other members of my flight struggled and some didn't make it.  The goal of BMT is to separate and remove those who can't make it, the goal of encampment is to have everyone succeed and learn.  Two very different goals.

I'm well aware that encampment is not basic training, which is why I didn't say that it was.  Also, the immediate connection to yelling to "demeaning talk" is... interesting.

CAP is a military-type organization, and the cadet program is rooted in the USAF model.  There are many niches regarding youth organizations.  We need to own ours, which is an AF-modeled military cadet program.  Being everything to everybody is a route to failure, and turning encampment into a jamboree hug-a-thon is cutting the legs out from under the encampment program because we don't have the sand to create an appropriately difficult program that challenges and builds physically, mentally, and morally tough people. 

This is the breeding of weakness.  It's making cadets who think it's supposed to be all fun, all the time.  It's creating future adults who will continue to slip the standards lower if/when they become seniors (CPFT in 15-20 years will be synchronized breathing in a 3-second cadence, probably).  You're teaching them that they're supposed to be all up in arms about mere words ("mercy, somebody called me a basic!" as they stagger to their padded fainting chair), or that somebody raising their voice at them is some kind of personal attack.  I've never said it should be all yelling, all the time.  I simply said that it's a tool that can be used with the proper training for the proper situation.

The culture of youth is changing.  Got it.  That doesn't mean we don't hold the line in our organization when it comes to making tough and responsible citizens. 

Encampment is not and should not be an "introduction to CAP".  They have a Curry (at minimum), therefore I consider them introduced to the organization and it's time to start stretching their limits. 

If they get their feelings hurt over getting yelled at, good.  That's the first step to build a callous once they realize they didn't die or experience the slightest amount of pain.

Most acceptable yelling at an encampment or other CAP activity fall into two categories: Warning of imminent danger and conveying information from one person to a large group of people(or overcoming ambient noise).

What is usually not acceptable is using yelling as a training tool. It doesn't train and usually just makes the user a tool.

Most people who work at encampments a lot will recognize the difference between the two kinds. It's usually people who are new to the encampment experience or are coming in to the encampment with preconceived notions of what the activity should be that have difficulty understanding this.

Pages 10-21 should be required reading (the whole thing is excellent, but for the purposes of the current thread):

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/static/media/cms/CAPP_6015_5F3814CB09867.pdf

I have worked very, very hard over the years to create our intensity doctrine and help communicate the appropriate "look and feel" of encampment; primarily to help standardize the experience between the wings.  Which used to vary even more than it does now.  Clearly I have some more work to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ about some aspects of encampment intensity, but I think we should at least be able to come to a consensus as to whether the occasional raised voice is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.  And it appears that we are not quite there yet.  People I respect come down on both sides of the issue.

But some sort of consistent military experience at encampment is important to our colleagues in the AF, who generously allow advanced grade for enlistees who have been through our encampment (and go on to achieve the Mitchell).  It was at their request that we began to reform and standardize the encampment experience several years ago.  We also describe the problem of standardization in the introduction on the first page of Cadet Encampment Guide

Encampment is designed to be "regimented," using a military training model based CAP and AF traditions.  (CAPP 60-70, para 1.1c).  In a positive, age-appropriate manner, of course.  It deliberately operates at a higher intensity level than most cadets will experience in their cadet careers.  We deliberately employ strictness, rigor, and a sense of urgency to reinforce military bearing and to encourage teamwork.

I suspect we are all in substantial agreement on the vision described in our doctrine, but we do not yet agree whether the occasional raised voice used to impart rigor and urgency can be part of the model.

And yet the military training model is remarkable -- indeed universally -- consistent over time, culture, and geography.  And invariably includes significant amounts of raised voices and externally-imposed discipline for the trainees.  And this has been so since the first legionnaire met the first centurion in Rome.   

Yelling or the tap dance "raised voice" is a dated tool and needs to be placed on the shelf unless there is a safety issue.

Every single military force in the world disagrees with that statement.  Every single one.  Including our colleagues in the AF.  Not one of them thinks of it as "dated."  None have placed it on the shelf.

Please do not try and compare military basic training with encampment.  They have different goals and are dealing with adults.  Encampment is not a tool to separate quality people from everyone else like basic training is.  Encampment is an event to teach young teens to be a CAP cadet.  It also has to deal with a huge rang of maturity levels and must fit all levels. 

Non-concur on several levels.  First, while encampment and IET are indeed different animals, encampment and military basic training are comparable in many important ways relevant to the discussion here.  Things like living in a barracks with a group of peers for the first time in their lives, having to wear uniforms waking hours, extremely regimented schedules, exacting and difficult group and individual performance standards, military oriented classes, inspections, dining halls, making a bed in a standardized way, drill and ceremonies instruction, early morning PT, etc., etc., etc..  Even the "fun" things are comparable -- the possibility of an orientation flight, time in the firearm simulator, a trip to MCSS.  All are very comparable, and indeed consume the great majority of the experience both for our cadets and basic trainees.

But perhaps most importantly, ALL of the above is closely supervised by NCOs and officers who offer immediate guidance, feedback, and assistance.  Sometimes in a raised voice.

Further, the purpose of basic training is NOT to sort the wheat from the chaff (although it also has that effect), it is to provide training and discipline to new recruits to allow them to contribute to their service.  Seriously, even if there were some other way to magically identify recruits who are unsuitable for the service, the others would still underdo basic training to become a cohesive, disciplined, airman.

We have had many discussions on this and related intensity topics here on CT for well over a decade.  And I am convinced that if we were all standing around together at an encampment watching training, we would almost always agree on when a given intensity level / voice intonation was appropriate or not.  But here on the internet, we lose the essential look and feel of the interaction and the words "yelling" and even "intensity" are poor words when it comes to relaying what actually happened.

Still trying to solve that part of the problem.

Ned Lee
Encampment Enthusiast

Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

I think it would, however if it was not "required", like actually required, then the effect would probably be
like most other "required" training, mixed at best.

And if it was "required" like actually required, the pool of available people which is already far too low,
would shrink even further, and much like the rest of CAP, there is no way to guarantee continuity.

Even when CAP-USAF had oversight, things were still inconsistent wing-to-wing and even year to year, but
now that they are largely out of the picture, CAP has lost that check valve.

Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

I think it would, however if it was not "required", like actually required, then the effect would probably be
like most other "required" training, mixed at best.

And if it was "required" like actually required, the pool of available people which is already far too low,
would shrink even further, and much like the rest of CAP, there is no way to guarantee continuity.

Even when CAP-USAF had oversight, things were still inconsistent wing-to-wing and even year to year, but
now that they are largely out of the picture, CAP has lost that check valve.

True.  The whole point should be to spread the "official" encampment methodology throughout the wings, but that's a several-year adventure, if it ever happens.

I've thought that if a wing has two encampments per year, then one encampment should serve as the staff training for those who will staff the next one, which will serve as the staff training for those who will serve on the one after that.  So winter encampment is staffed by those who went through the Cadre Course during the summer, and those in the cadre course over the winter would be integrated the next summer.

This basically means that both encampments within a wing would have to standardize as much as possible, which given the gang-turf mentality that pops into these kinds of things, will also probably never happen. 

Col Lee you have done great work in Cadets Programs and the results from what I have seen speak for themself.  But there are major differences between encampment and BMT.  Yes the AF wants certain things in the encampment curriculum.  It is one thing for an MTI at Lackland to "yell" at a flt of 30-40 people and another for Cadet Snuffy at encampment..  My experience with the later has been cadets especially cadet cadre yelling simply because they can.

Not everyone does MTI duty and actually as of a few years ago they upped the requirements for it after the BMT scandal.  I can say that having staffed and ina couple cases planned and led activities that when "yelling" was removed it was far more successful. 

I'm all for a structured encampment regime however yelling especially when there is no imminent dange just to yell or prove a point is counter productive. I can't even recall the last time I had to yell as a training tool in daily job or CAP.

But there are major differences between encampment and BMT. 

 
Of course. 

But my point is that there both major differences but also "major similarities," which are directly comparable.  As I wrote in the CAPP 60-15, MTIs go to months of schooling before working directly with trainees, while the typical CAP senior member or cadet cadre supervising cadets at encampment might have mere weeks of training, and sometimes little or none.  AF Trainees typically range in age from 17-24, while our cadets are typically 13-15 at encampment.  I can only agree that those two groups are very different in their ability to benefit from, let alone tolerate, higher levels of military intensity.

I'm pretty sure we agree completely on this point.

 

It is one thing for an MTI at Lackland to "yell" at a flt of 30-40 people and another for Cadet Snuffy at encampment.

To make the comparison fair, let's modify it to read "It is one thing for an MTI at Lackland [to raise his/her voice] at a flight of 30-40 people and another for a CAP cadet flight sergeant to [raise his/her voice] at a flight of 15-20 cadets at encampment."

(Trying to make sure we are comparing a group criticism with a group criticism.)

So, why do you think so?  I guess this may be the heart of our disagreement.  Clearly, any work with our cadets has to be positive and age appropriate, but at least in other youth training situations there appears to be fairly wide agreement that fair and age-appropriate constructive criticism directed to a group (as opposed to an individual) is both safe and effective.  It is hard to me to imagine any of my youth sports coaches not speaking loudly and plainly to the team as a whole when we performed poorly.  Especially when we were together in a group, but even when we were spread out on the field.  "I know you can do better than that" seems an appropriate team-building message, even when delivered in a loud voice tone to help create urgency and focus our attention on our collective performance.

My experience with the latter has been cadets especially cadet cadre yelling simply because they can.

Again, I think we agree on this part.  Nobody should raise their voice "simply because they can."  Indeed, we have a pretty good discussion of cadets "Going Hollywood" in the 60-15 at p. 15, with the advice that "CP leaders should be alert to this risk and intervene. . . "

I'm all for a structured encampment regime however yelling especially when there is no imminent dange just to yell or prove a point is counter productive. I can't even recall the last time I had to yell as a training tool in daily job or CAP.

Again, I think we agree on far more than we disagree here.  No one is suggesting that a raised voice should be used if it is counter-productive in a given situation or activity.  And I agree that in the great majority of cadet activities, (Squadron meetings, weekend activities, CAP conferences, most region and national activities, etc.) it would be extremely rare to hear a raised voice.

Ultimately, I think the answer is somewhere between the two extremes -  Raised voices all the time, and never ever use a raised voice unless safety requires it.

A raised voice is just one tool in the intensity toolbox described in pp. 16-18 of the 60-15.  A leader's voice tone and loudness is just one thing that can be used to raise or lower an intensity level to optimize a cadet's task focus and learning.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.  You are making a very real difference in the future on the nation.

Ned Lee

Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

I can only agree, but we could never make the numbers work.  Even on a regional basis.  And assuming that what we are really running is a "train the trainers" course to help communicate intensity look and feel, we would probably want to have at least 2-3 graduates of such a course at every one of the forty-ish encampments wings and regions run every year.  Even moving folks two states over for a weekend class would consume the lion's share of each wing's CP budget.

Sure, we could do some of it, at least, on line.  But that just returns to the difficult question of how we effectively communicate an intangible "look and feel" to our CP leaders nationwide through written or AV media.

Most of us know "how encampment works" because we have been to one.  Or more.  In our own wing.  I was surprised when I first became a Region DCP how breathtakingly few of us ever get to an encampment in another wing.  I made it a point to make to as many encampments in my region as I could (never did get to AK or HI, but had trusted agents and videos to help me understand their encampment cultures), and it amazed me how different they could be.  Astonishingly different encampments were held just a 100 miles apart.

Now I have responsibility (shared with my NHQ volunteer and corporate colleagues) to help ensure a relatively uniform encampment experience nationwide.  As you can see, we have not yet reached a consensus on some parts of it.

NY, when I went in '13, '14 and '15, was extremely tame as far as intensity goes. Shouting, yelling, and the like are very heavily discouraged, with the reasoning being hazing concerns. It looks like it will remain that way this year. I'll have some more discussions about this with my DCC and Commander, but at this point, it's staying tame.

This is the breeding of weakness.  It's making cadets who think it's supposed to be all fun, all the time.

Isn't it?

1.6.5. Fun. CAP should be fun. New friends and great opportunities are the hallmarks of cadet life.
The cadets who work hard in CAP reap the most benefits, but the program should not be another form of
school – it needs to be fun, hands-on, rewarding, and exciting. Proper adult supervision, an emphasis on
risk management, and teamwork built upon mutual respect create a safe and fun environment. Every
activity should be fun, for cadets and their adult leaders alike.

This is the breeding of weakness.  It's making cadets who think it's supposed to be all fun, all the time.

Isn't it?

1.6.5. Fun. CAP should be fun. New friends and great opportunities are the hallmarks of cadet life.
The cadets who work hard in CAP reap the most benefits, but the program should not be another form of
school – it needs to be fun, hands-on, rewarding, and exciting. Proper adult supervision, an emphasis on
risk management, and teamwork built upon mutual respect create a safe and fun environment. Every
activity should be fun, for cadets and their adult leaders alike.

+1.

"Yelling", per se, literally holds zero weight when the person on the receiving end knows full well that there is
no corporal or further punishment or ramifications beyond the yelling.  Yelling in CAP is the equivalent of
a military-themed amusement park - it's all fun an games to "play Army", but there's no real risk and
everyone knows they can just head for the exit if things get too "real".

Those of us of a certain age with strict parents grew up in a world where corporal punishment was not only common, it was expected, and could be
metered out by not just parents, but others in "loco parentis", so the yelling had an apocalyptic period at the end of the sentence
if you didn't knock it off, and there was no "wait until my lawyer hears of this!" from a 12 year old, as is the case today.

If Sister smacked you with a ruler, or the shop teacher offered you "3 hits or 3 hours" (detention), you took it (probably with the
grounded knowledge that you messed up), and hoped to your deity that "Dad didn't find out", because if he did, it wasn't going to be
"I will give that nun a good talking to..." it was going to probably be a couple more of the same.

Kids today know that there is nothing at the end of the yelling, except, perhaps, a myocardial infarction, and most will just stand there
and wait you out, until you realize you look like an idiot and move on to some other means of persuading the desired behavior.
This is something that is ingrained in them from pre-school, and CAP is not going to change that.

A child persuaded to a behavior via no other means then the threat of corporal punishment, is essentially
a prisoner in that situation.

Couple that with the generalized anxiety disorders and worse that kids are saddle with today.  It is literally impossible to
snap a kid with an anxiety disorder "out of it" by yelling at him in a punitive way, it just makes it worse, on an escalating scale.

This is the world CAP exists in today, accept it or not, this is not a fact you can dispute, and again, I'll be happy to debate
the hows and whys over coffee, but CAP isn't going to be a factor in changing it, and it can't influence or help anyone who
quits before they have a chance to even hear the lessons.

So, with the above said...

For those espousing the "yelling at", it might be interesting to know what, exactly, you think you're supposed to be yelling "about"?

 - Improper uniform wear?

This cadet has been in CAP 3 weeks and received his uniform yesterday. Mom put the nametape on the wrong side as she
sewed it in the car on the way to encampment.

 - Inability to march / drill properly?

His unit staff is made up of 3 moms with no military experience who are barely keeping the doors open as-is,
and didn't understand the directions. The oldest cadet in the unit is a C/SrA.

 - He's late getting up the first morning, and slow to get his hygiene done.

This cadet couldn't get off school and lives 10 hours away, he was up for 17 hours the day before and hasn't
had his medication yet this morning.  BTW, this cadet, like many these days, is up every day at 0600 or earlier and
routinely turns his nightlight off at midnight because of homework he can't start until 10pm, after sports and band, and yes
CAP meetings.

- Cadet isn't running fast enough?  Can't do enough pushups (define "enough")?

- Cadet doesn't dress for the pool because he can't swim.

- Cadet's parents didn't tell him his boss for his summer job called and he has to leave encampment early.

- Cadet arrives 2+ hours late for encampment because his parent, unit CC, etc., had to work, or simply wasn't in a hurry.

- Cadet brings, or doesn't bring, something he should or shouldn't have, because his Unit CC "knows better" and advised him improperly?

- Cadet couldn't afford new boots and the ones he was able to borrow are too small and tore up his feet.

These are not adults, being consistently trained, and who are responsible for their own lives, these are 12-year olds
who in many cases have never spent a night away from home, and whose parent' only have 1/2-an idea what CAP even is.

So...what's all the shouting for?

True, there's nothing to back it up, because for some reason CAP has equated a set of pushups to a physical assault.  In my view, PT as punishment isn't a big deal when done correctly (and using common-sense guidelines coupled with the training/supervision that apparently isn't happening if you think they can't be taught to use a raised voice correctly).  However, I don't see that changing as CAP policy any time soon, and probably never.  Congratulations, you slipped the standard too far down and now you've cut the legs out from under cadet staff members who have a week or less to establish control and move a group of people through a challenging curriculum (or what should be a challenging curriculum). 

Glad nobody gets the sadsies when their muscles are made to burn for making a dumb choice.   There's no consequences, only happy times no matter what you do (until they push the limit too far and get sent home early.  Sure would be good if you had a plethora of progressive tools available to correct behavior before you got to the nuclear option, but lay in the bed you demanded be made).

And all the hypothetical situations you've outlined have really just proved that some situations aren't appropriate for yelling, not that yelling is never appropriate.  And so they got yelled at for something that wasn't in their span of control?  So what?  They could just suck it up and perform, instead of going "BUT SIRRRRR, MY SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND A HOST OF OTHER FACTORS MEANS I NEED A PAAAAASSSSS".  Stop giving them excuses to use, they need to learn how to shrug it off and keep moving forward. 

This is the breeding of weakness.  It's making cadets who think it's supposed to be all fun, all the time.

Isn't it?

1.6.5. Fun. CAP should be fun. New friends and great opportunities are the hallmarks of cadet life.
The cadets who work hard in CAP reap the most benefits, but the program should not be another form of
school – it needs to be fun, hands-on, rewarding, and exciting. Proper adult supervision, an emphasis on
risk management, and teamwork built upon mutual respect create a safe and fun environment. Every
activity should be fun, for cadets and their adult leaders alike.

It is literally impossible to make CAP all fun, all the time for everybody.  Good grief.  "I don't like to run, it's not fun for me."  OK, you still have to participate in order to be in the program.  Without a willingness to suffer hardship and discomfort, nobody would get anywhere.  Might as well introduce that in controlled doses early in the cadet experience.

Yes, most of the program should be fun, but we shouldn't encourage the ability to shy away from the necessary parts that enable us to earn the fun parts.  Doing so is only going to lead to, wait for it... weakness.

And in the process of, and as a result of, completing something challenging and difficult, the cadet may even find that they enjoyed it.