Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2018, 01:45:43 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Print
Author Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"  (Read 7133 times)
Dwight Dutton
Forum Regular

Posts: 154

« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2018, 10:27:05 AM »

As it stands SMWOG is a 6 month temporary position out of which appointment to officer grade is essentially guaranteed.

I still think the FO grades should not be limited to a 3 year age range.  Let every senior member start out as an FO

If you want a better sounding title for a new member - we already have it.
Logged
CAP9907
Global Moderator

Posts: 77

« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2018, 11:04:10 AM »



I still think the FO grades should not be limited to a 3 year age range.  Let every senior member start out as an FO

If you want a better sounding title for a new member - we already have it.

I cant disagree with this... it actually makes good sense to me
Logged
16 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,889

« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2018, 11:28:24 AM »

As it stands SMWOG is a 6 month temporary position out of which appointment to officer grade is essentially guaranteed.

I still think the FO grades should not be limited to a 3 year age range.  Let every senior member start out as an FO

If you want a better sounding title for a new member - we already have it.

Super idea, and it would have worked well if it hadn't been for those pesky NCOs.

According to 35-3, FO grades outrank NCOs. If a member decides to go the NCO path of rainbows and unicorns, he is essentially getting demoted to do so.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,316

« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2018, 11:54:28 AM »

As it stands SMWOG is a 6 month temporary position out of which appointment to officer grade is essentially guaranteed.

I still think the FO grades should not be limited to a 3 year age range.  Let every senior member start out as an FO

If you want a better sounding title for a new member - we already have it.

SMWOG is NOT a temporary position. You can join and be a member for 50 years and still be a SMWOG if that is your wish.
Promotions to higher grade are not mandatory. We don't have an "Up or Out" policy in CAP like the "real military" has.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2018, 04:14:39 PM by PHall » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,258

« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2018, 12:06:39 PM »

SWWOG is NOT a temporary position. You can join and be a member for 50 years and still be a SMWOG if that is your wish.
Promotions to higher grade are not mandatory. We don't have an "Up or Out" policy in CAP like the "real military" has.

Humorously, you can be a unit commander, or for that matter even a Wing or National CC, as a Senior Member,
but not wearing E-9 stripes.

It's not workable in a volunteer paradigm where the majority of the institutional knowledge lives in
the older members with inconsistent, and sometimes nonexistent development, but an "up or out" policy
would at least allow for people to see a natural end.

I've said this before - spend 10 years in the military or a corporate job and separate and it's a "success",
leave CAP after 10 years and you're a "quitter".

Frankly, for most members, that 25-year mark is probably where the cut off should be for everybody.
Logged


Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,716

« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2018, 12:36:32 PM »

PHall, your last post,  :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree there is no need to change Senior Member. I have never, ever met anyone that when told about Senior Member equates that with being old or above 60. And I have been a Senior Member for about 20 years!

Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,470
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2018, 12:53:39 PM »

Again, SMWOG is an invention, a nonentity having NO official basis. You will not find "SMWOG" in any CAP publication. Anywhere.

Sent using Tapatalk

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
NovemberWhiskey
Recruit

Posts: 22
Unit: NER-NY-301

« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2018, 01:17:38 PM »

There are “adult individuals without grade” referred to in CAPM 39-1 for example. Is there some fine distinction between “adult individuals” and “senior members” you’re trying to draw out?
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,470
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2018, 01:25:11 PM »

There are “adult individuals without grade” referred to in CAPM 39-1 for example. Is there some fine distinction between “adult individuals” and “senior members” you’re trying to draw out?
I am trying to point out the uselessness of SMWOG in any discussion.

I did, in fact, come across "adult individuals ...' in my search for SMWOG and its expansion. It appears to be becoming the favored term.

Sent using Tapatalk

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 845
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2018, 02:14:40 PM »

There are “adult individuals without grade” referred to in CAPM 39-1 for example. Is there some fine distinction between “adult individuals” and “senior members” you’re trying to draw out?
I am trying to point out the uselessness of SMWOG in any discussion.

I did, in fact, come across "adult individuals ...' in my search for SMWOG and its expansion. It appears to be becoming the favored term.

Sent using Tapatalk

Except “adult individuals” describes anyone who is an adult, whether in CAP or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,470
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2018, 03:10:44 PM »

There are “adult individuals without grade” referred to in CAPM 39-1 for example. Is there some fine distinction between “adult individuals” and “senior members” you’re trying to draw out?
I am trying to point out the uselessness of SMWOG in any discussion.

I did, in fact, come across "adult individuals ...' in my search for SMWOG and its expansion. It appears to be becoming the favored term.

Sent using Tapatalk

Except “adult individuals” describes anyone who is an adult, whether in CAP or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent using Tapatalk

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,182

« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2018, 04:59:56 PM »

After reading this very intellectual thread, I've come to the conclusion we must copyright the term "SMOWG", and incorporate this as the initial grade in CAP.  I would have enjoyed being addressed as SMOWG Weiss, back in the day! :o ;D >:D
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2018, 05:00:45 PM »

What's wrong with just Senior Member?  Senior Airman is an actual grade in the Air Force and we don't want any confusion, right?

+1

Also, it's very clear that many SM don't really put much weight on the "officer" title.  While some of our members are motivated by prospects of LOOKING like a person who is in the military (complete with uniform and 'rank'), other very productive, very supportive, adult members view it differently.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,716

« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2018, 07:23:47 PM »

I think a lot of members at some time misunderstood the phrase "Senior Member without grade" and started using it that way thinking it was the intention of NHQ. Mistakenly. For the first ten years of my CAP service I was reading on CAP manuals references to "senior members without grade" but never ever heard anyone referring to "SMWOG." It was only about five to eight years that I ever found people literally using the phrase.

"It is in CAPM 39-1." So is Captain bars. So when are we going to read this rank is not "Captain" but "Captain Bars?"

"It is in CAPM 39-1." So is Major's rank. So when are we going to read this rank is not "Major" but "Major Rank?"
Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
supertigerCH
Forum Regular

Posts: 152

« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2018, 08:05:47 PM »


SMWOG is NOT a temporary position. You can join and be a member for 50 years and still be a SMWOG if that is your wish.
Promotions to higher grade are not mandatory. We don't have an "Up or Out" policy in CAP like the "real military" has.


Yes to this PHall. 

Well said.  I guess this is the issue that lead to my starting this thread! (and suggesting a possible solution... although certainly there might be other ways to address it... that are even better than my idea).
« Last Edit: October 25, 2018, 08:24:01 PM by supertigerCH » Logged
supertigerCH
Forum Regular

Posts: 152

« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2018, 08:23:00 PM »


I still think the FO grades should not be limited to a 3 year age range.  Let every senior member start out as an FO

If you want a better sounding title for a new member - we already have it.


I agree very much with what you're saying here.

As a matter of fact, maybe that is an even better solution than the one I originally suggested (which was all members joining CAP as Senior Airman).

As you are pointing out here... an even better answer is right before our eyes... and it would not require creating any new ranks that don't existJust make slight amendment to the Flight Officer ranks that already exist!  Open them up wider than what they are now... & have all new members join as flight officers.

Then, similar to my original suggestion, those members interested in officer track (things like leadership & more professional development) can choose as soon as the time is right, to begin the process for promotion to 2LT.  Those members that are loyal hard workers... but have no interest in leadership positions/advancement... could remain flight officers (with perhaps promotion to Tech Flight Officer and Senior Flight Officer based on years of good service (10 years, 20 years?  or maybe based on something else?).

Cadets who turn 18... could (I assume) continue to become flight officers (with the usual age 21 for pursuing officer track).


This sounds like it could be an even better idea than the one I first posted.  Instead of creating something that is not currently part of CAP, just make slight adjustment to policy... on ranks that we already have (and it takes care of the situation of 2 types of members that I originally talked about -- leader/officer types... and those who just want to serve faithfully without focusing on advancement).

Sounds like an even better possible solution... than the one I first thought of.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2018, 08:50:04 PM by supertigerCH » Logged
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,629

« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2018, 10:08:20 PM »

Seems like there is a desire to classify the "non rank" of Senior Member Without Grade as some type of rank. Not really seeing any reason to do this.

What I can understand is wanting a better term for the people joining up that haven't yet earned a rank. Something better than "Senior Member Without Grade Smith." (Doesn't really roll off the tongue smoothly now, does it?)

Maybe a term like "Candidate?"

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with someone new being addressed as "Airman" (and just "Airman," not "Senior Airman") although I suspect that could be confusing. But, it would probably be more fitting than anything else, and at least it would be a functional term of address.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,258

« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2018, 10:17:08 PM »

The proper term for new adult members, up to them being promoted is...

"Senior Member".

While the term "Senior Member without grade" does appear in a few places,
it's really "Senior Member (without grade)".
Logged


SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,470
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2018, 10:21:21 PM »

Hawk, I direct you to replies 18 and 27, with my explanation of the non-term  SMWOG.

Sent using Tapatalk

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,629

« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2018, 07:58:54 AM »

Hawk, I direct you to replies 18 and 27, with my explanation of the non-term  SMWOG.

Sent using Tapatalk
Saw those. I think the issue is that "Senior Member" seems awkward, and doesn't really describe a placement like "Lieutenant" or "Major" does. It's also a bit of a long winded term.

"Senior Member" can be confusing to outsiders. Most people have heard of lieutenants, captains, majors, or colonels; but "Senior Member" doesn't really say much. I think some folks would like to see a term that has some sense of meaning outside of CAP. What that might be is what is up in the air.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.386 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me