Draft change for CAPR 50-17

[RogueLeader]

Here it is folks.

Comments?

[dwb]

I've said this before, but I think the PD credit for cadet milestone awards is a really bad idea.

Most senior cadets are still relatively clueless about how to run a cadet program from the senior member perspective.  SLS is important because it places the former cadet amongst his new peers, viz. other senior members.

Here is my full rant from June of last year.

[Cecil DP]

I've said this before, but I think the PD credit for cadet milestone awards is a really bad idea.

Most senior cadets are still relatively clueless about how to run a cadet program from the senior member perspective.  SLS is important because it places the former cadet amongst his new peers, viz. other senior members.

Here is my full rant from June of last year.

Official recognition of these achievements will be awarded on an individual basis. Former cadets who qualify for
these awards should submit a written request, approved by their commander, to HQ CAP/DP to have the member's
permanent record updated to reflect the appropriate equivalency as described above and issuance of the Yeager Award, if
applicable. If completion of required cadet accomplishments is not already a part of the member's permanent record, then
supporting documentation should be attached to the request.
As you can see by the excerpt from the proposed Reg. The credit is not automatic the reg requires the Commander to certify that the former cadet does meet the criteria.

[arajca]

I've said this before, but I think the PD credit for cadet milestone awards is a really bad idea.

Most senior cadets are still relatively clueless about how to run a cadet program from the senior member perspective.  SLS is important because it places the former cadet amongst his new peers, viz. other senior members.

Here is my full rant from June of last year.

Official recognition of these achievements will be awarded on an individual basis. Former cadets who qualify for
these awards should submit a written request, approved by their commander, to HQ CAP/DP to have the member's
permanent record updated to reflect the appropriate equivalency as described above and issuance of the Yeager Award, if
applicable. If completion of required cadet accomplishments is not already a part of the member's permanent record, then
supporting documentation should be attached to the request.
As you can see by the excerpt from the proposed Reg. The credit is not automatic the reg requires the Commander to certify that the former cadet does meet the criteria.

And how many commanders are NOT going to autmatically put them in regardless, just because they have the Earhart/Eaker/Spaatz? How many of these whose commanders DO NOT put them in will cry to their wing commander who will put them in for it?

[lordmonar]

The commander is only approving if the ex-cadet the particular award (Earhart, Eakker) not approving whether or not the individual should be a technician or Senior level PD guy.

It is not automatic in that National is NOT going to do a computer records search and update the PD level.

As for SLS placing former cadets amongst peers......I disagree.  SLS is a major waste of time for someone who has 4-5 years in CAP.  Getting the ex-cadet into the senior members of his squadron will do a lot more then a week end in a class room.

My beef with awarding PD levels for cadet acheivements....is that just because you are a Spaatz does not mean you know anything about the behind the scenes work that seniors do to run a cadet program.

[swamprat86]

I don't see the logic about attending SLS for cadets as a networking event.  As a senior cadet, I was already working with many SM in the Wing at various events.  As a matter of fact, in my SLS class the majority of the students were former cadets that came through the program together.

[dwb]

Cecil DP: As you can see by the excerpt from the proposed Reg. The credit is not automatic the reg requires the Commander to certify that the former cadet does meet the criteria.

lordmonar: It is not automatic in that National is NOT going to do a computer records search and update the PD level.

I never said it was automatic.  I just said it was a bad idea.

As for SLS placing former cadets amongst peers......I disagree.  SLS is a major waste of time for someone who has 4-5 years in CAP.

I don't know about that.  There will certainly be material that is old news to a former cadet, but SLS is a good way to provide a senior member's perspective to how a squadron runs, and what being a senior member means.

SLS can be a waste of time if the director doesn't take his instructor lineup seriously.  But if that's true, then it will be a waste of time for everyone, not just former cadets.

My beef with awarding PD levels for cadet acheivements....is that just because you are a Spaatz does not mean you know anything about the behind the scenes work that seniors do to run a cadet program.

Bingo.

[Flying Pig]

Im going with the waste of time for SLS for an experienced cadet.  I was in CAP 6 years as a cadet and practically could have taught the SLS class. 

But, since I have no record of attending SLS about 11 years ago prior to me stupidly letting my membership lapse, I get to go again.  Yipppeeee

[dwb]

A point of clarification: The SLS and CLC curriculums were overhauled somewhere around 2007-2008.  The new materials are much, MUCH better than the old stuff, which was basically garbage.

When I say SLS is worthwhile for former cadets, I'm referring to the new curriculum.  If your last SLS was 11 years ago, you're in for a treat.  Hopefully you'll have a good director.

[cnitas]

^ I was just about to post that.  The new SLS is much more a leadership siminar and networking experience than the old SLS.   I went through the old course after 5 years as a cadet and it was useless. 

I have been director of the new course and I would recommend seniors attend SLS again even if they already had the old one on file.

I do not think SLS credit for former cadets now that we have a new course is a good idea.

[Eclipse]

^ I was just about to post that.  The new SLS is much more a leadership seminar and networking experience than the old SLS.   I went through the old course after 5 years as a cadet and it was useless. 

I have been director of the new course and I would recommend seniors attend SLS again even if they already had the old one on file.

I do not think SLS credit for former cadets now that we have a new course is a good idea.

Ditto.

Considering the amount of change in policies, regs, and personnel each year, annual attendance wouldn't be a bad idea.
BTDT?  Then come back as an instructor.

The cadet experience does not prepare you for day 1 as a senior member - the motivations for each program are completely different in most cases, as is the dynamic of leading volunteer adults with opinions of their own.

[Pylon]

If the goal was to encourage cadets to become senior members by dangling low-hanging fruit, I think the objective could have been accomplished better in another way.  This devalues the accomplishments of senior members who have earned these ratings through duty performance.   I was a cadet officer who became a senior member at 21 and immediately began working in the program on the adult side.  It took me about 12 months to really, fully adjust. 

I sat through CLC and SLS in my first year as a senior member (caveat emptor: albeit the old curriculum) and I could have taught 75% of the material off-the-cuff and learned the rest through a self-reading assignment.  Nonetheless, as useless as I thought it was to me, it forced me to be around other senior members (not just the ones that knew me as a cadet) and I networked a little bit.  As for knowledge, I gained more from UCC and especially TLC than any other other weekend CAP PD courses.

I can tell you as both a former Earhart cadet and now a Deputy Commander for Cadets and former Group CPO that I maybe warranted a Yeager award and the Level I that already gets waived at the time I crossed over.   Cadets might know a lot about cadet programs (they can recite the oath, tell you about all the promotion requirements, tell you how the CPFT is administered, etc.) but even the "high level" responsibilities we give cadet officers are just not skills at the senior member management level.   The cadet programs specialty track is supposed to recognize experience at that level of management.   And it takes time spent as a senior member (in the squadron) to learn a lot of that stuff.

As someone who would have benefited from these freebies, I think they're a terrible idea. Cadets already have a lot of "bling" incentive when they become senior members anyways -- we get to carry over a handful of ribbons.  Well-traveled cadets can easily be wearing two to four rows of ribbons on their first day as a senior member.  They also get a dues-free upgrade to SM for the remainder of their membership cycle and get Level I orientation course waived.  In my opinion, that's plenty.

[MIKE]

^ Ditto... But I would go as far as to remove all advancement benefits including grade.

[RiverAux]

I am generally pretty hard core against any sort of special promotions or appointments for anyone for any reason HOWEVER, this is the one area where I'm willing to give a little, but only because it is recognizing achievements within CAP.  If dropped all the other special promotions/appointments and only had this one route, I woud be against it, but given all the other ways people get advanced promotions for non-CAP achievements I have a hard time getting that worried about this one in particular. 

[Eclipse]

A practical question - its says "may" qualify - so under what grounds would you deny a cadet the advanced track placements?

[Major Carrales]

I have alway been intriqued by the idea of the Cadet Program as "ROTC for CAP."  If the last stages of the Cadet Program offered an "Organizational Execellence" option (note the "optional" track) for Cadets who actually wanted to become CAP Officers then this would make some sense.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't be opposed to something like that.  Perhaps introducing training elements specifically relating to managing cadet programs, ES, and AE into the cadet officer curricula would be the way to go. 

Personally, I would also introduce SAR and DR management concepts for them to study at that stage just like ROTC/Academy cadets study the warfighting strategy and tactics unique to their service.  I think if we started doing that, we might get even greater retention of former cadets since they could actually start to visualize the next steps in their CAP careers and would have a great foundation upon which to build to become integrated into the ICS structure as something other than ground team, flight line, and radio operators. 

[Eclipse]

Good ideas, but likely mostly on deaf ears - the number of cadets who actually reach phase IV is small enough, divide that by those who ever go dark side and aren't busy with college, etc., and you're not talking about a very big pool for a whole new chunk of curriculum.

[Hawk200]

Interesting possibilities. The inclusion of the Yeager Award would allow me to get my Level 4.

Seems like the Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. award is simply naming Level 2. Neither here nor there to me. To honor Aerospace pioneers is acceptable.

Considering some of the above posts, I have to wonder about the practicality of awarding CP track levels for cadet achievements. I could see awarding credit for some of the CP track requirements, but not for the whole thing. Just being a cadet doesn't really qualify a person to manage cadets.

[dhon27]

Interesting possibilities. The inclusion of the Yeager Award would allow me to get my Level 4.

Not sure I follow.  The Yeager Award is already recognized as satisfying a portion of the Level IV requirements under the current reg.