A Commission?

[ZigZag911]

Some years back I served on a group staff as one of four rather senior lt colonels.

The CC was newly minted major (special appointment by virtue of getting the command).

Most of the unit CCs were lieutenants & captains.

We saluted him, and generally addressed him in public as "Major".

He saluted each of us (it really depended on who saw whom first), and called us 'colonel or 'sir', unfailingly, in public.

He was in charge, and if we saw him steering into troubled waters, one or more of us brought it up to him privately.

Sometimes he took the advice, sometimes not.

We all survived!

[Hawk200]

I believe that the argument "everyone deserves to get promoted" is how we got to the system we have today, with all of its warts.

I don't believe such a thing. If everyone did, then there would be no need for PD advancement. And I know many a person stuck at a grade because they won't complete various levels. So, in reference to your statement, not everyone deserves it. There are cases where they're "too busy", or too lazy to get it.

I know of a group commander in one wing who had been a captain for almost twelve years. Why? Because of that one little "NOTE" in 35-5. In twelve years, he hadn't accomlished it. Probably could have submitted a half a dozen wavers for it by that time. You're allowed a year for the course. Surely, four volumes of what is essentially a CDC could be accomplished in that time. Although dishonest, he could have even ordered the course and taken it open book. He didn't care about advancement, only his position. How do you deal with a person like that?

He didn't get a lot of support, I imagine because people had seen him never promote. He just hung around, holding position. At least the current system requires people to better themselves.

I don't think he should have held the group position at all after a couple of years. Your system would place someone that didn't even have equivalent professional advancement in comparison to many people in some of the squadrons he supervised.

I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military comissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade.

Should a comission be adopted, it doesn't need a Presidential signature either. I think the Chief of Staff of the Air Force would be more than sufficient. And it might have the advantage of the AF being more aware of us, and including us more in their operations.

[Grumpy]

"I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military commissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade."

So, for a commission in CAP, should we require a college education  and a cut off age of 30 years old?

[Hawk200]

"I neither agree or disagree with a commision, but if one were actually adopted, the bar needs to be raised. Military commissions require a lot of education. We should be putting it forward in our initial training, not spreading it out over years, or even a decade."

So, for a commission in CAP, should we require a college education  and a cut off age of 30 years old?

You're taking my statement way too far. For the initial it needs to be more than four hours of video and new clothes, which is what our initial training is right now. A revamped CAP officer course for the initial would probably be a good idea. Educate our officers a little more in the military way that we have.

Reaching higher ranks should require more leadership training. I took the AF Airman Leadership School, and I think that much of its contents would be applicable. Not the whole four weeks, that's impractical. A lot of it seemed pretty inline with Region Staff College. Build on something like those.

There are a lot of volunteer organizations out there that probably have far more advancing education than we do. It shouldn't be like that.

Requiring college degrees and a cutoff age don't benefit us.

[Grumpy]

OK, that's good about the college and age cut off.

How about CAP setting up a program much like WAPS testing?  Take a written and meet a board along with a records review.  That would tighten up the training requirements.

[ddelaney103]

But I have seen the "but I won't be able to promote because I'm too far away" argument here before.

Promotion in the RM is more than just checking blocks until you're promotable - someone has to decide that 1) you're able to handle the added responsibility and 2) there's a place for you.

There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions.  By also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

[Hawk200]

OK, that's good about the college and age cut off.

How about CAP setting up a program much like WAPS testing?  Take a written and meet a board along with a records review.  That would tighten up the training requirements.

Things that make you go "Hmmmm". I'm not sure whether I should think that this is the greatest idea since sliced bread, or the worst thing I've ever heard.

It would prevent those that never bother to work on anything from advancing, and there are also procedures in place for testing people at the unit. So it's not impossible.

The question is whether or not it would be practical. It would only be one test every few years, the problem might be creating a test that most people coiuld reasonably study for and pass without spending every free moment studying. But there are people that have issues taking tests. Maybe require them for captain and up?

Definitely something to think about. It would definitely eliminate an appearance that "everybody will make lieutenant colonel". Either way, we need to definitely improve our officer corps. I'm game to any reasonable program. People should have a right to advance, but they should have to work for it.

Although come to think of it, we are under Air University. I don't see how we couldn't have some of these courses accredited, and transferable to colleges and universities. Although we wouldn't go so far as to offer a degree, there's a certain irony to becoming a CAP officer to help with your schooling.

Still, for any commision, we still need higher standards. What we have doesn't really fill the bill. Can you imagine: "I took a four hour course, and got a comission!" ?

[Hawk200]

There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

By also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

[ZigZag911]

How about minimum time in CAP before receiving officer rank?

I'd link it to the Red Service ribbon -- 2 years service (and I really don't care what the title is -- SMWOG, A1C, SrA, Officer Candidate) for those without prior military or CAP cadet service before getting 2nd Lt.

Give some time to learn about the organization before expecting new members to accept officer type responsibility.

I'd also link the RSR to command appointment.....2 years active CAP membership before becoming eligible for any commander/deputy/chief of staff type position.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, ZZ, I'd go in the opposite direction.

I think a comprehensive, and fairly intense, officer training program should exist in CAP, and after completion of that program, 2LT rand should be awarded.

The intensity should be about the same level as a cadet encampment, but conducted on weekends.

[mikeylikey]

Actually, ZZ, I'd go in the opposite direction.

I think a comprehensive, and fairly intense, officer training program should exist in CAP, and after completion of that program, 2LT rand should be awarded.

The intensity should be about the same level as a cadet encampment, but conducted on weekends.

It did exist up to the early 1950's!  We got bent on the "more and more people" NOW mentality.  A good training program that existed for CAP Cadets transitioning to the Officer side of CAP should be brought back, not for cadets, but for new members.  Serve a year learning about CAP, it's missions, people, do some job rotations then pick a career field you are interested in.  It is appearant we are not recruiting enough members now, so lets turn who we recruit into quality Officers (or NCO's).  Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

[Hawk200]

Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

[mikeylikey]

Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

Let me spend a few days standing at the scanner.....I will post a few.  UNLESS someone has already beaten me to it??

[SAR-EMT1]

Nothing wrong with bringing back ideas from the 40's and 1950's.  They did seem to work!

From looking at a few of the old officer's manuals, I'd say there were plenty of good ideas. Somehow they got lost by the wayside. Maybe it's time to dig up some of those old manuals.

Let me spend a few days standing at the scanner.....I will post a few.  UNLESS someone has already beaten me to it??

Mr Shaw, Please report to the thread, Mr Shaw....

[Dragoon]

There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

By also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

You know, I've never seen the GOB problem to the extent that some people have seen it.  Most Wing CC's I've worked for were DESPERATE for good folks. Problem was, no one wanted the jobs.  So....they "guilted" their friends into helping them out.  Hence the outward perception of "Good 'ol boy network."

I have seen, however, many cases of two kinds of folks complaining about the "Good 'Ol Boy Network."

1.  Folks, who, frankly, wouldn't be good at the job, but who lack the insight to realize this, and figure reason they didn't get it HAS to be favoritism.

2.  Good Folks who somehow expect CAP leadership to automatically identifiy them as being highly talented individuals worthy of advancment, when in reality they haven't done enough for anyone in the Wing to realize how good they are yet!

The idea of tying grade to both position and PD is a very good one - that way it ain't just about taking a test and doing nothing, but it's also not just about taking a good job with no training.

[James Shaw]

Mr Shaw, Please report to the thread, Mr Shaw....

Someone rang?

Tags - MIKE

[Dragoon]

There are two different but related problems: you can promote w/o taking on harder work and tougher jobs go begging for people.  We can help resolve both of them by tying grade to the more responsible positions. 

I don't think tying grade to higher positions is the answer. You can still end up with GOB being a problem by only certain people being allowed to take positions. If you're not on someone's good side, you'd never get a position and be able to get promoted.

By also linking training level to grade we can avoid the good old boy network handing out higher grade - they can hold the position but not wear the full level of grade until they reach the higher level of training.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. There may be ways around it, but those ways would be more difficult. You don't have people just jumping to higher staff to make grade, they would still have to work on it. There is a similar caveat to making major as a group CC, so there is precedent. For sitting commanders, shorten the time in rank requirements, but still require Pro Dev. Same thing for wing CC's. I'll bet a LTC wing CC would definitely put some time in on his Pro Dev if he knew he needed it.

You know, I've never seen the GOB problem to the extent that some people have seen it.  Most Wing CC's I've worked for were DESPERATE for good folks. Problem was, no one wanted the jobs.  So....they "guilted" their friends into helping them out.  Hence the outward perception of "Good 'ol boy network."

I have seen, however, many cases of two kinds of folks complaining about the "Good 'Ol Boy Network."

1.  Folks, who, frankly, wouldn't be good at the job, but who lack the insight to realize this, and figure the reason they didn't get the job HAS to be favoritism.

2.  Good Folks who somehow expect CAP leadership to automatically identifiy them as being highly talented individuals worthy of advancment, when in reality they haven't done enough for anyone in the Wing to realize how good they are yet!

The idea of tying grade to both position and PD is a very good one - that way it ain't just about taking a test and doing nothing, but it's also not just about taking a good job with no training.

[SAR-EMT1]

Im commenting on this again, as I mull over the possibility of the PHS Reserve...

What are the chances that we could get the Air Force to give us a certificate or warrant or commission? - maybe signed by the USAF-CAP /CC or SECAF- 

It would not need to give us power over others, merely serve as the object giving us status as (Auxiliary) officers.


I know we've batted this around for 10 pages... but as written up as I put it above, with the justification above, would anyone really have a problem with this?

Or to ask a sidebar: If CAP-USAF/ NHQ came out tomorrow and announced that we would recieve something like this: What should such an item say/ look like and whose signature would you like to see on the bottom?

[riffraff]

I've been in CAP about 40 days. I'm trying to understand the high emphasis placed upon 'commissions' and uniforms.

IMO, CAP ranks are on the same footing as officers in fire departments, not the US armed forces. This is no way implies that there aren't competent people in CAP. There are. However, I fail to see how being a CAP officer comes remotely close to meeting the commissioning requirements of the US military.

Commissioning requirements for the armed forces involve educational requirements, some form of basic military training, completion of an OCS/OTS type of program, completion of some form of initial career training, etc. Basically a year or more of training (365+ days).

CAP requires a person be older than 21, complete Level 1 training, and be on the books for 6 months (6 days, if meeting once a month).

PHS officers are part of the USN  have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the (inserted: medical professionals who are directly commissioned into the armed forces.

CAP has no such equivalent.

If CAP were to embark on such a program, I'd be curious to see how willing existing members would be to accept dramatic reductions to their current grades?  I suspect the more likely answer would be to grandfather those already in grade and make the tougher program applicable only to new members.

[mikeylikey]

PHS officers are part of the USN and have federal commissioning credentials and requirements similar to that of the armed forces.

They are??