Interesting Question

[Trinket2]

It all began when my SASI in my JROTC announced that no cadet could achieve officer rank. The highest rank possible would be C/CMSgt. A lot of people thought this was ridiculous, so did I. I was openly opposed to the idea. So one day, my SASI calls me into his office and asks me what I think. I tell him all my reasons about need for officers, and rank structure. He tells me to think it over for a week and report back to him.

So I think and think. I begin to realize I need other input to give I believe a satisfactory answer. So I will ask you. Why do you need officers in AF JROTC if C/CMSgt. could easily take over the work. Why do we need those ranks? hope to get an answer.

[flyBoy2010]

I think it really depends on how big your corps is. The bigger the corps, the larger the command staff needs too be and therefore the rank structure works differently.

So how many cadets are in your corps? And how are your Chain of Command and the various staff positions laid out?

The answers to those questions should help answer your question.

[C/CLN]

You need Officers. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in my entire life. Besides being absolutely embarrassing having no Officers at a Drill Comp to command any routines, how would it look in the public eye to have a Chief as the CC? Idk how military-oriented your town is, but I live quite close (within walking distance, actually) to an AFB, and if we were in a parade and had an Enlisted Cadet calling commands, we would be laughed at.
Having Officers is also a necessity because the people who lead and take the initiative within the Unit need to be very visually distinguished from the rest. The simple replacement of the collar insignia with the shoulder loops accomplishes this, and is quite effective in the sense that others in the school and whatnot immediately know who has set themselves above and beyond the rest and who is in charge. How idiotic it would look to have a Chief as a CC, and a SMSgt as the Vice.
The removal of Officer ranks would also nullify classic Enlisted-only positions (NCOIC positions, Command Chief, Flight Sergeant, etc.), because what good would it be to have a Commander, Vice, and NCOIC of a structure and have them all enlisted? That would be dumb because it would be incorrect to call the NCOIC an NCOIC, because the Commander is most certainly going to rank higher than the NCOIC, and if the Commander is enlisted, then he/she would technically, logically be the NCOIC, by literal understanding.
Also, this would take motivation away from cadets who wish to be better than the rest. What good would it be to work hard if all you're going to get for it is another stripe? That gets boring after a while to even the most motivated, and they start to just not give a crap anymore. If there is nothing tangible that a cadet can acquire, then he/she is not going to want to separate him/herself from everyone else, and you eventually end up with a whittled-down, motivationless, goal-less unit because people have no personal accomplishments to work for, besides ribbons.
I'd feel pretty dumb when I saw some kid in another unit come up to me and ask why mine doesn't have Officers.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Also, this would take motivation away from cadets who wish to be better than the rest. What good would it be to work hard if all you're going to get for it is another stripe? That gets boring after a while to even the most motivated, and they start to just not give a crap anymore. If there is nothing tangible that a cadet can acquire, then he/she is not going to want to separate him/herself from everyone else, and you eventually end up with a whittled-down, motivationless, goal-less unit because people have no personal accomplishments to work for, besides ribbons.

The idea that only promotions to officer status are real achievements are a dangerous one. The idea that simply acquiring more cloth on one's sleeve (or metal on one's collar) makes them better is another dangerous idea. The rank doesn't make the person, the person makes the rank. If you have a cadet First Lieutenant who rises up the ranks without really learning his job and you have a senior enlisted cadet who knows his job inside and out, what's more beneficial for the underlings below? Promotions merely afford the opportunity for one to better themselves...it doesn't guarantee anything. If cadets want to separate themselves, they can do so by knowing their job and leading by example. If they get ribbons and/or promotions from it, so be it. If they don't, then that's fine. You don't go the extra mile to get something awarded, you do it because you can and you're supposed to.

I'm not in JROTC, but I did three and a half years in the NSCC and all cadets are enlisted. There's no such thing as an NSCC officer who is a cadet...and we ran the unit just fine. Granted, there are major differences in the programs, but having an enlisted-only structure for the cadets gave us a unique insight into the impact that the "enlisted" can have in getting the work done. I was "only" a cadet PO2, but I ran entire drills as Leading Petty Officer with the adult Commanding Officer only performing ceremonial/menial functions in between and other officers chipping in where they were needed.

Don't put too much emphasis on the officers in any cadet program...true leadership exists for its own sake and isn't embodied in a piece of metal or cloth.

[TruBlu]

It really all depends. I think the idea of a cadet enlisted only unit is fascinating. When deciding on an organizational/rank structure, you have to look at a few factors: What do we have? What do we need? What do want? A good structure is the foundation of a successful unit, and structure needs to match the corps properly. I'm willing to place money that your corps is in one of two situations: 1. You (the corps) is relatively or brand new, and higher AS cadets aren't around yet. 2. You are becoming a smaller and smaller unit and need to scale your rank accordingly.

But before I give a definitive, or my bottom line answer to it all, answer me these about your corps:

Years of operation?
Approximate number of cadets?
Approximate AS year percentiles (25% AS4, 25% AS3, etc)?
Current level of organization (flight, squadron, group, wing)?
Planned level of organization (I/A)?
Attendance in COLS, COLP, SLS, or other summer leadership training?


And one to just get you thinking: What is the true purpose of rank, and the division of cadet enlisted and cadet officers as such?

[Stryfe]

Officers are a necessity for an Corps to be functional. Officers are needed to take charge, set examples, and provide overall motivation based on their successes. I'm not sure of the circumstances that led your SASI to make this decision, but if Unit size is an issue, here's a solution that could be useful. I only have knowledge of AFJROTC Rank Structure so I'll use them for my example.

If you don't have enough Cadets to fill in all of the ranks, and have big gaps, you could potentially fix this by removing some of the ranks. You could acheive this by removing the following ranks, (Or whatever the equivalent is for the respective Corps.):
C/Airmen 1st Class
C/Staff Sergent
C/Senior Master Sergeant
C/First Lieutenant

Once that step has been taken you could either make Promotion Board standards more rigorous, cut down on Promotion Boards per year, or award the rank of Officer to those who only meet exceptional pre-requisites.

Anyway, that's just my solution to the matter.

[C/CLN]

The idea that only promotions to officer status are real achievements are a dangerous one. The idea that simply acquiring more cloth on one's sleeve (or metal on one's collar) makes them better is another dangerous idea. The rank doesn't make the person, the person makes the rank. If you have a cadet First Lieutenant who rises up the ranks without really learning his job and you have a senior enlisted cadet who knows his job inside and out, what's more beneficial for the underlings below? Promotions merely afford the opportunity for one to better themselves...it doesn't guarantee anything. If cadets want to separate themselves, they can do so by knowing their job and leading by example. If they get ribbons and/or promotions from it, so be it. If they don't, then that's fine. You don't go the extra mile to get something awarded, you do it because you can and you're supposed to.

I'm not in JROTC, but I did three and a half years in the NSCC and all cadets are enlisted. There's no such thing as an NSCC officer who is a cadet...and we ran the unit just fine. Granted, there are major differences in the programs, but having an enlisted-only structure for the cadets gave us a unique insight into the impact that the "enlisted" can have in getting the work done. I was "only" a cadet PO2, but I ran entire drills as Leading Petty Officer with the adult Commanding Officer only performing ceremonial/menial functions in between and other officers chipping in where they were needed.

Don't put too much emphasis on the officers in any cadet program...true leadership exists for its own sake and isn't embodied in a piece of metal or cloth.
The programs are completely different. JROTC already has a foundation in itself as a program that has Officers, so why should one unit be deviant?
Those people who do nothing should make no rank in the first place. You can prevent most problems with Officers by making the requirements to be one extremely high in the first place, and whittle out the rest by removing uncooperative Cadets from the program all together. My Unit has an amazingly healthy staff and we follow the basic things I said earlier, and it has worked very well for the past 43 years now.
The person does make the rank, and if the requirements for that rank are stringent enough, you can pretty much guarantee (with some obvious slight deviation) that people who not only make Officer ranks, but higher ranks in general, that those people who make it there are going to be the most motivated leaders. I can honestly say if I worked my butt off for 4 years and got nothing for it, I'd be pretty mad. Rank is not a thing where you go "oh you got all A's good boy here's Major!". Rank is something that should be a culmination of all things, all aspects of a program. If someone excels at everything required to make a rank, then why is it so wrong to praise them?

JROTC is different from the actual military, obviously. Most Officers don't go in Enlisted and then get a Commission later. JROTC is different--everyone goes in Enlisted and then the top few go on to Officer ranks. You don't get 2Lt. in the AF for doing better than your peers (in the sense that you were all a part of an Enlisted Corps and a few got selected to become Officers--while this happens with OTS and similar programs, it's because you made the personal choice to go after this). In JROTC, you have everyone belong to the same group in the beginning, and those who meet a specific leadership and academic and physical requirement go on to become Officers if they choose.

I agree that Cadet senior NCO's are to be respected because they DID make it to those ranks, but idk about other Units, but at mine, junior Officer promotions are much more difficult to make than junior Enlisted promotions. Besides, we are not arguing the validity of anyone saying that someone is better than someone else (because some Officers can be heartless, immoral people, just like Enlisted Cadets can be as well); we are arguing that some people possess leadership skills and (at least in my opinion) should be recognized for it in a way that is distinguished from the rest.

In JROTC, Officer rank is more of an award when it comes down to it, one that is still very difficult to attain because one must (usually) excel in all military training areas to get it. In the real military, it is much more.

It is better to have some people specialize in thinking and giving orders all day, and to have different people assist in the development of these orders, and take them. When you have the same people working on two separate jobs, things get mixed up and unorganized.
It is better to have some people have four years of taking orders (as is the general function in JROTC), and others have one year of that and three of giving them, because it allows everyone to A: pursue what they personally are interested in, and B: have enough differentiation between the two that they are known as separate but very cohesive entities.

Why change it if it has worked in the vast majority of other units? I understand that this particular person's Unit may be either failing or new, but if it is an established one (which is what it sounds like), then why the random, crazy change of course?

[C/CLN]

Officers are a necessity for an Corps to be functional. Officers are needed to take charge, set examples, and provide overall motivation based on their successes.
COMPLETELY agree.

[ang1sgt]

As one that has been on Active Duty, let me say this. On the AD side, I think most units could function well without Officers. This is one problem I see with JROTC. It seems like the Cadets have LESS respect for the upper SNCO ranks than they should. This HAS and DOES cause problems when these same cadets either come into the AD Military via the enlisted rank or after commissioning if they move on through ROTC. I've seen it, I've had to deal with it first hand.

I wonder what Enlisted Drill Instructors would say to some of these comments?

JROTC Units for the most part, give rank out way too fast. I have NEVER seen a Cadet First Sergeant that really knows his/her job and what it REALLY means to be a First Sergeant. Yes, this is a personal pet peeve of mine.

[SlightlyCatholic]

The programs are completely different. JROTC already has a foundation in itself as a program that has Officers, so why should one unit be deviant?

Where does that officer foundation come from? It is functionally necessary?

Those people who do nothing should make no rank in the first place. You can prevent most problems with Officers by making the requirements to be one extremely high in the first place, and whittle out the rest by removing uncooperative Cadets from the program all together. My Unit has an amazingly healthy staff and we follow the basic things I said earlier, and it has worked very well for the past 43 years now.


One, you do run the possibility of making the requirements so high that nobody can atain them...and that's just as discouraging as having bad officers. Second, it seems to me like you would like a very polarized JROTC program..."Either hit the top and grab your metal for your collar or leave". Third,what if a cadet wanted to stay as First Sargeant or even stay as Command Chief Master Sergeant? Are they expected to move up as opposed to staying where they are for fear of being labeled an "underachiever"?


The person does make the rank, and if the requirements for that rank are stringent enough, you can pretty much guarantee (with some obvious slight deviation) that people who not only make Officer ranks, but higher ranks in general, that those people who make it there are going to be the most motivated leaders. I can honestly say if I worked my butt off for 4 years and got nothing for it, I'd be pretty mad. Rank is not a thing where you go "oh you got all A's good boy here's Major!". Rank is something that should be a culmination of all things, all aspects of a program. If someone excels at everything required to make a rank, then why is it so wrong to praise them?

You have a right to be upset if you don't feel like you're appreciated...but what I'm really point out as bad is a cadet who maybe cleans up after class and only does it so he or she can be noticed (for promotion or an award). I do agree with you that it is not wrong to praise someone who meets the criteria for the rank. My problem, again, is the fact that there seems to be an underlying attitude of the NCOs and Senior NCOs being mere stepping stones to the "real" rank.

JROTC is different from the actual military, obviously. Most Officers don't go in Enlisted and then get a Commission later. JROTC is different--everyone goes in Enlisted and then the top few go on to Officer ranks. You don't get 2Lt. in the AF for doing better than your peers (in the sense that you were all a part of an Enlisted Corps and a few got selected to become Officers--while this happens with OTS and similar programs, it's because you made the personal choice to go after this). In JROTC, you have everyone belong to the same group in the beginning, and those who meet a specific leadership and academic and physical requirement go on to become Officers if they choose.

Again, all the emphasis on achievement seems to be centered on making officer status. Are your cadet Senior NCOs grouped in with your cadet Airmen? If so, why?

I agree that Cadet senior NCO's are to be respected because they DID make it to those ranks, but idk about other Units, but at mine, junior Officer promotions are much more difficult to make than junior Enlisted promotions. Besides, we are not arguing the validity of anyone saying that someone is better than someone else (because some Officers can be heartless, immoral people, just like Enlisted Cadets can be as well); we are arguing that some people possess leadership skills and (at least in my opinion) should be recognized for it in a way that is distinguished from the rest.

My questions for you are: why those people cannot be recognized by achieving cadet NCO or Senior NCO status? They, too, possess leadership skills, no? Are they not also distinguished from the rest? If you need a collar device to have command presence, then IMHO, you shouldn't be carrying the torch.



In JROTC, Officer rank is more of an award when it comes down to it, one that is still very difficult to attain because one must (usually) excel in all military training areas to get it. In the real military, it is much more.

So I'm guessing that your enlisted ranks are merely stepping stones to that award? Why wouldn't a cadet Senior Master Sargeant need to excel in all training areas to received his or her rank?

It is better to have some people specialize in thinking and giving orders all day, and to have different people assist in the development of these orders, and take them. When you have the same people working on two separate jobs, things get mixed up and unorganized.
It is better to have some people have four years of taking orders (as is the general function in JROTC), and others have one year of that and three of giving them, because it allows everyone to A: pursue what they personally are interested in, and B: have enough differentiation between the two that they are known as separate but very cohesive entities.

Any good leader can tell any subordinate what to do and have them get the job done...clothing doesn't matter. A senior NCO is a manager/leader, and while they have to salute the youngest Second Lieutenant, they also run enormous numbers of enlisted components in their given positions. Again, it seems like the only distinction you're making is between the officers and everybody else. Where do the cadet NCOs fall in?

Why change it if it has worked in the vast majority of other units? I understand that this particular person's Unit may be either failing or new, but if it is an established one (which is what it sounds like), then why the random, crazy change of course?

Has it worked? Or is it just "the way it's been done"? Is there a regulation stating that an AFJROTC unit must have officers, or merely billets representing billets traditionally held by officers?


I don't mean to grill you on this, but it seems to me from reading your post that you want officers because 1) they're regarded as special, 2) they have "shock value" in terms of their uniform accessories, and 3) officer status is harder to get than other things and you want the ceiling to be higher.

I think your senior NCO cadets could do the same thing by simply adjusting requirements and getting cadets to put good leadership on a pedestal instead of a couple metal circles or a metal diamond.

[PhilK]

Originally Posted by Stryfe
Officers are a necessity for an Corps to be functional. Officers are needed to take charge, set examples, and provide overall motivation based on their successes.

COMPLETELY agree.

Completely DISAGREE.

While Officers do take charge, set examples, and provide motivation...in the real world any NCO worth anything can provide all those things and usually will do it on a more consistant basis due to their proximity to junior enlisted personnel.

In the Army, NCOs are called the "Backbone of the Army". They are the ones who get things done and who truely make sure that the day to day operations get completed. In my current position I do long term planning. That means I look at projects 3-10 years out, start planning, preparing, etc. I also oversee the Human Resource aspect of the organization. In that arena, I look 1-3 years down the line. Do you know who handles the day to day HR opertions? A young SPC and PFC. I give a little guidance, but unless they end up with an issue they just can't handle then they come to me.

When I was a Troop Commander, it was my First Sergeant that handled the day to day operations and most individual troop issues.

So, if you have a SI and ASI that can provide long term planning, what do you need cadet officers for, since your day to day tasks should be handled by NCOs anyway?

[Billyd]

As a NCO, I have to agree with the Major. Let me add this to the mix for you. Who teaches the platoon leader? Who guides the young LT fresh from commissioning? Who does the Company Commander look to for advice, especially when dealing with enlisted persons and their issues? I "trained" a fair number of young LTs while on AD. Even when I was a A1C/SrA. Your NCOs are Subject Matter Experts. They know the equipment, the people and how to make the two work together.

[Psybadek]

The programs are completely different. JROTC already has a foundation in itself as a program that has Officers, so why should one unit be deviant?

Just because JROTC has officer's doesn't mean they have to be utilized. The Major and Tech. Sgt are right, NCO's do the work in the military. But, JROTC is different. I know in my unit if you had a job you did it, you had help for things, but you were responsible for your duties, not like how the Major explained what he does.

When I was in CAP there were many flights that didn't have officers in their flight. Heck, I've seen flights where the flight commander wasn't even the highest ranking cadet in the flight, and I've seen cadet commanders ranked at C/Senior Master Sergeant. It's all about the needs of the unit


The person does make the rank, and if the requirements for that rank are stringent enough, you can pretty much guarantee (with some obvious slight deviation) that people who not only make Officer ranks, but higher ranks in general, that those people who make it there are going to be the most motivated leaders. I can honestly say if I worked my butt off for 4 years and got nothing for it, I'd be pretty mad. Rank is not a thing where you go "oh you got all A's good boy here's Major!". Rank is something that should be a culmination of all things, all aspects of a program. If someone excels at everything required to make a rank, then why is it so wrong to praise them?

You'd be mad if you didn't get the rank you wanted? I don't see why, the rank you earn will be meaningless after high school. It's the experience and memories that mean something. If you put something into it you will get something out of it.

There is nothing wrong with showing a cadet praise for what they do, that's why we have awards also. Rank goes with added responsibility, not for praise only. As a cadet moves up in rank, he/she will have more to learn and more responsibility. Not everyone is ready for the responsibility the rank holds.


JROTC is different from the actual military, obviously. Most Officers don't go in Enlisted and then get a Commission later. JROTC is different--everyone goes in Enlisted and then the top few go on to Officer ranks. You don't get 2Lt. in the AF for doing better than your peers (in the sense that you were all a part of an Enlisted Corps and a few got selected to become Officers--while this happens with OTS and similar programs, it's because you made the personal choice to go after this). In JROTC, you have everyone belong to the same group in the beginning, and those who meet a specific leadership and academic and physical requirement go on to become Officers if they choose.

No commissioned officer goes back to being enlisted and then re-commission, but a lot of enlisted soldiers to earn their commission, and there is a lot of officers who were once enlisted. But you are right, everyone starts off the same in the program and you have to work your way up. The only difference with JROTC than other cadet programs like CAP, Young Marines, and some other ones I don't remember the name is that you can jump ranks in JROTC. I've seen many cadet's go from C/Seaman to C/PO1, but in CAP and YM you have to go through every rank. There is no skipping ranks.



In JROTC, Officer rank is more of an award when it comes down to it, one that is still very difficult to attain because one must (usually) excel in all military training areas to get it. In the real military, it is much more.

No it is not. Officer ranks are not awards when it comes down to it. Officer's hold positions, just like in the real military. Cadet Officers are the senior cadet's and they hold a high responsibility to teach the younger cadet's and perform in there duties. It is far more than a simple award.


It is better to have some people specialize in thinking and giving orders all day, and to have different people assist in the development of these orders, and take them. When you have the same people working on two separate jobs, things get mixed up and unorganized.
It is better to have some people have four years of taking orders (as is the general function in JROTC), and others have one year of that and three of giving them, because it allows everyone to A: pursue what they personally are interested in, and B: have enough differentiation between the two that they are known as separate but very cohesive entities.

I can agree with that, but that doesn't mean having officer's is a requirement.


Why change it if it has worked in the vast majority of other units? I understand that this particular person's Unit may be either failing or new, but if it is an established one (which is what it sounds like), then why the random, crazy change of course?
Obviously something isn't working in his unit and that's why they're restructuring. Granted, the cadet should be replying and giving us his situation. But something must not be going right if they are wanting to remove the cadet officer ranks.



Now for my personal opinion, I don't see a problem with it. Like I've said, I've seen flights with all enlisted cadet's and they still function. No one laughed at them for not having officers. (Well for one it is much harder to become a cadet officer in CAP than in JROTC)

There are cadet programs that are enlisted only, Young Marines, Naval Sea Cadet Corps, US Army Cadet Corps. Those are all programs that don't need to have cadet officers and function very well.

In short, it really depends on the needs of the unit though. If it's large enough for cadet officers, then there is no real reason not to have them, but for newer units or units losing member's quickly, I would work as a enlisted only unit until the numbers get up. Remember, the rank isn't the position, it's the cadet that is the position.

[DSEddie]

Some of these posts make me hope that some of you either learn what NCO's are about or you are never commissioned and put into a position over me.

I had a West Point cadet that came to do two weeks with us on the trail at Ft. Jackson. He thought he was the best thing since sliced bread because he was "going to be an officer, an Infantryman, a Ranger, and one day Special Forces." His words. He interrupted training to put in his two cents, he talked down to the Drill Sergeants and the 1SG when he didn't agree with what we were doing, etc. One night, when we were out in the field, some of us Drill Sergeants had a nice conversation with him. I explained to him that "going to be" does not mean the same as "is." I am an Infantryman with 7 years (at the time) of experience and two (again, at the time) deployments under my belt. We taught him that it is NCO's who make the mission happen. We also taught him that cadets who want to be something need to respect those of us that already are what they want to be.

Personally, I've never seen the point in having cadet rank beyond the circles and diamonds. The only need in ROTC/JROTC is titles, like Squad Leader, PSG, 1SG, Company CO, etc. No need for C/Basic through C/COL, just plebe through Senior with corresponding diamonds or circles.

[C/CLN]

First of all, AFJROTC really by definition is a Leadership Laboratory. All things you do in JROTC from day one really come to a converging point at about the third year, in which a few distinguished cadets hold high leadership positions, and the in the senior year when they are on the senior staff. We at my Unit have a 7-member senior staff. The Officers are known as the Top 5, and the two Enlisted cadets are the Command Chief and the Chaplain (odd that he is Enlisted, but our Unit wanted more Enlisted positions a long time ago, so Chaplain was switched to enlisted). We are an NCO-rich unit. This year we had probably 15 or so make MSgt or higher. No one made Chief, as Chief really is an amazingly hard rank to make here. Next year only one person is on track for it, and we have a unit of 250+.
I am not denouncing the necessity of NCO's to make a JROTC program function, but it is absolutely true that cadets who wish to attend a Leadership School, and pass it, should indeed be visually recognized for it. I'm not saying a glinty uniform makes an officer, because the only thing different from an enlisted cadet is the replacement of collar insignia for shoulder loops.
NCO's are quite necessary to the proper function of a Unit. As any stable Unit has a minority Officer corps, the Enlisted people need to be represented accordingly. We at my Unit have a great respect for Senior NCO's, but the general formulation for the making of a Senior NCO at my Unit is you have a freshman cadet who is either disinterested or does not meet requirements to attend Leadership School, comes back as a SrA as a Sophmore, and figures that if he/she is good enough to make SSgt by the end of the year, then why go to Leadership School then either?, as a junior makes it up to MSgt, and a Chief by the senior year. We have a very developed enlisted corps, but the general makeup of MSgt-Chief is someone who has immense leadership capabilities but has some small flaw that made them ineligible for promotion to O-1, or was not interested in becoming an officer. We have had many NCO's take the AFA award (highest National Award in AFJROTC), probably just as many as Officers. We have many Enlisted Leadership positions as well, but the very nature of a JROTC program is that those who meet a certain criteria make a certain rank. It is MUCH harder to make C/2Lt. than it is to make C/TSgt., but if it weren't for inhererent number limitations for the rank of like C/Lt. Col. and Col., then Chief and SMSgt. would be just as difficult to make as those ranks. Senior Officer ranks in JROTC are much more difficult to make than Senior Enlisted ranks because the number limitations for the Officers are much more strict than those of Enlisted ranks, so where C/Col. may be just as requirement-heavy as C/Chief, the Col is still harder to make because there is [usually] only a maximum of two, whereas there are as many Chiefs as can make it, basically.

While not everyone is ready for the responsibilities of C/O ranks, there are people in every Unit who ARE ready for them.
And I am not saying that an Officer gets a Commission, goes to Enlisted, the re-Commissions. What I am saying by saying "Most Officers don't go in Enlisted and then get a Commission later," is that most Officers don't START out Enlisted and then get a Commission. Most are Commissioned straight from ROTC or the Academy, and go through a completely different program than that minority of Officers who start out Enlisted then get a Commission.

People who take different career paths should be visually different to signify their status, not to have better/worse uniforms, but so people in general know who was who.
If you had two Enlisted cadets, and one was CC and the other was like, idk, Command Chief, and they were both Chiefs, and both had giant ribbon racks, then how would anyone know which was the CC and which was the Command Chief without knowing them previously? They wouldn't. But if you have a C/Col. and a C/Chief that both have huge ribbon racks, you immediately know which is which with some elementary rank knowledge that you can get with a very quick Google Search.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I am not denouncing the necessity of NCO's to make a JROTC program function, but it is absolutely true that cadets who wish to attend a Leadership School, and pass it, should indeed be visually recognized for it. I'm not saying a glinty uniform makes an officer, because the only thing different from an enlisted cadet is the replacement of collar insignia for shoulder loops.

Why do you need to be able to display your achievements in metal or cloth? Are the lessons learned and the improvement of the unit from utilization of those lessons not enough?

NCO's are quite necessary to the proper function of a Unit. As any stable Unit has a minority Officer corps, the Enlisted people need to be represented accordingly.

I thought the number of subordinates determined the number of leaders, and not the other way around...

We have many Enlisted Leadership positions as well, but the very nature of a JROTC program is that those who meet a certain criteria make a certain rank.

So basically JROTC has officers because "it's always been that way"? What exactly are those criteria and who determines them? Any cadet unit needs leadership, not necessarily a certain number of cadet officers. If your leaders are all enlisted, then you have leaders to run the unit...I don't see a need for officer rank.

Senior Officer ranks in JROTC are much more difficult to make than Senior Enlisted ranks because the number limitations for the Officers are much more strict than those of Enlisted ranks, so where C/Col. may be just as requirement-heavy as C/Chief, the Col is still harder to make because there is [usually] only a maximum of two, whereas there are as many Chiefs as can make it, basically.

Why not just have a bunch of qualified cadet Chiefs run the unit and have one be the Command Chief?

[Billyd]

And therein lies the flaws of the program as a whole. If the program were to mimic the actual workings of the AF, which it purports to do in some aspects, then let's look at the numbers.

According to Airman Magazine (http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090413-047.pdf), there are currently 324,633 airmen on active duty. Of those, approximately 20% or 64,494 are officers. That leaves 260,139 enlisted personnel. Of those, only 3% are Sr NCOs (Msgt, SMSgt, CMSgt). Which is 7804.17. And only 1% will be a CMSgt which is 2601.39 (I would hate to be that .39 Chief :(). To tranlate this to your unit of 250 TOTAL cadets, you would have 50 cadet officers leaving 200 cadet enlisted. With only 3% being cadet MSgt or higher, that would be 6 with only 2 of those being a C/CMSgt.

This is what Top is talking about when he says that not enough emphasis is placed on the cadet NCOs.

I do not know what the breakdown of officers is and I never concerned myself with it while on active duty. But it seems that in a unit where everyone can make C/Chief just by showing up, there seems to be a breakdown somewhere.

[C/CLN]

Why do you need to be able to display your achievements in metal or cloth? Are the lessons learned and the improvement of the unit from utilization of those lessons not enough?
You are just taking it from a personal level. There needs to be differentiation not for yourSELF (as you know what you have done, I hope), but so the general body of cadets and public know who is in charge at any given time.
If you had some freshman kid with a problem and he had two Chiefs, one who couldn't do anything about it, and one who could, how would he know which to talk to? But if you have a Captain and a Msgt., you know immediately who to speak with. Not saying the MSgt. can't be of help, but generally if the problem is with a policy or something, he can't usually just snap his fingers and solve it.


I thought the number of subordinates determined the number of leaders, and not the other way around...
Which is what I said, but I said it in an odd sentence structure that is slightly misleading.


So basically JROTC has officers because "it's always been that way"? What exactly are those criteria and who determines them? Any cadet unit needs leadership, not necessarily a certain number of cadet officers. If your leaders are all enlisted, then you have leaders to run the unit...I don't see a need for officer rank.
Well the Cadets should make those criteria, as it is a cadet-run operation. Obviously there needs to be some original standard set by an Instructor for the very first Cadet Officers, because in that case there is not a Cadet before him or her that is qualified to say who can become a Cadet Officer. But even then we live in such a technology-rich world that it wouldn't be too hard to contact the other Unit across town to see what they do or something like that.


Why not just have a bunch of qualified cadet Chiefs run the unit and have one be the Command Chief
You are (as I am assuming) confusing CC for a Command Chief, sorry. A CC is an abbreviation for Corps Commander.

I mean, it seems like people are just going to say take Officers out of the the real military too, next.

[Billyd]

If you had some freshman kid with a problem and he had two Chiefs, one who couldn't do anything about it, and one who could, how would he know which to talk to? But if you have a Captain and a Msgt., you know immediately who to speak with. Not saying the MSgt. can't be of help, but generally if the problem is with a policy or something, he can't usually just snap his fingers and solve it.

And there again your system falls apart. If you ever find yourslef in uniform, and having a problem as a young airman, you try to solve your problems at the lowest possible level. You do not go straight to the top of the food chain, you move up one step at a time. And I would hate to be in your shoes if you bypass the entire chain of command and go straight to the colonel, when the SSgt you work for can solve the problem. Even policy issues. The NCOs in the chain of command will know the policy and the need for it and will explain in great detail why it is necessary.

[mtnsldr]

I liked the way we did it in ROTC at my school (back in the day, sigh).

First year cadets (MS-Is) were C/PFCs, everybody. This was your training year, and you learned from your superiors, usually MS-IIs. MS-IIs were C/CPLs and generally held team leader slots, and any "additional" people were lumped in with the squads. They did the majority of the training under the supervision on their SLs (MS-IIIs). MS-IIIs were SLs, PLs, PSGs, COs and 1SGs. They were evaluated in their leadership positions as a precursor to attending Advanced Camp.

Lastly, your MS-IVs (seniors) were the Battalion Staff. They were immediately responsible for planning and supervising training and administrative functions of the unit. We had training meetings, planning sessions, and conducted MDMP just like our military bretheren officers. Actually, it was immensely similar to my recent stint on BDE Staff as an Ops Officer. Our requirements for planning were the same as mine were when I was a C/BN S-3 in ROTC.

[C/CLN]

And therein lies the flaws of the program as a whole. If the program were to mimic the actual workings of the AF, which it purports to do in some aspects, then let's look at the numbers.

According to Airman Magazine (http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090413-047.pdf), there are currently 324,633 airmen on active duty. Of those, approximately 20% or 64,494 are officers. That leaves 260,139 enlisted personnel. Of those, only 3% are Sr NCOs (Msgt, SMSgt, CMSgt). Which is 7804.17. And only 1% will be a CMSgt which is 2601.39 (I would hate to be that .39 Chief :(). To tranlate this to your unit of 250 TOTAL cadets, you would have 50 cadet officers leaving 200 cadet enlisted. With only 3% being cadet MSgt or higher, that would be 6 with only 2 of those being a C/CMSgt.

This is what Top is talking about when he says that not enough emphasis is placed on the cadet NCOs.

I do not know what the breakdown of officers is and I never concerned myself with it while on active duty. But it seems that in a unit where everyone can make C/Chief just by showing up, there seems to be a breakdown somewhere.
We have, as I can remember, like 19 Officers in my entire Unit, with sixteen new ones each year. The turnover rate is high for Officers here, and we like it like that so the best make it to the top and the rest don't.
We pretty much have the same correlation of Chiefs, percentage-wise. However, the number of actual on-time promotions at my Unit for an entire four years leaves one short of the number required to make Chief. Rank is VERY rarely skipped here, so the way to make up for that extra rank is that if a freshman joins Drill Team, he/she is automatically promoted to SrA, but can make no more promotions during the freshman year. Every other freshman would only have enough time to make it to A1C.

And there again your system falls apart. If you ever find yourslef in uniform, and having a problem as a young airman, you try to solve your problems at the lowest possible level. You do not go straight to the top of the food chain, you move up one step at a time. And I would hate to be in your shoes if you bypass the entire chain of command and go straight to the colonel, when the SSgt you work for can solve the problem. Even policy issues. The NCOs in the chain of command will know the policy and the need for it and will explain in great detail why it is necessary.
I am saying this assuming that the Cadet is physically near the high-ranking Officer and Enlisted Cadet. It would be kind of retarded to write a letter and have it go through everything if you've got a Col and a Chief sitting right beside you.

[TruBlu]

Just a note to all who have posted thus far: When stating AFJROTC cadet ranks, use the proper terminology. Make "cadet" the preceding term to all full ranks, ie: Cadet Airman, Cadet Senior Airmen, Cadet Chief Master Sergeant, Cadet First Lieutenant, etc. When using abbreviations it's: c/AB, c/Amn, c/A1C, c/SrA, c/SSgt, c/TSgt, c/MSgt, c/SMSgt, c/CMSgt, c/2nd Lt, c/1st Lt, c/Capt, c/Maj, c/Lt Col, c/Col. No periods after any of the abbreviations (unless the end of sentence), no capitol "c" for cadet, unless using the full term, and spaces when needed. Before we go on, let's look back on our posts and make sure they follow these, not what the active duty members may claim, or whatever made up system you use.

And, just to cover myself, info is extracted from AFJROTCI 36-2001. And for anyone that wishes to actually check, yes the regulation does contradict itself only a few lines after, but this should be taken seriously: 6.2.3. The word “cadet” or an abbreviation must be a part of all references to cadet ranks.

There is also a difference between an "enlisted cadet" and a "cadet enlisted," as well as an "officer cadet" and a "cadet officer." The latter of each is the proper terminology for JROTC cadets that are not in any form of military service, or else it would imply such.

[Billyd]

I am saying this assuming that the Cadet is physically near the high-ranking Officer and Enlisted Cadet. It would be kind of retarded to write a letter and have it go through everything if you've got a Col and a Chief sitting right beside you.

And that will earn you the chewin gof a lifetime. The ONLY time one can jump the chain of command is when going to see the IG. And when you go see that individual, you need to have your ducks in a row and have exhausted all other avenues for resolution.

The chain of command exists for a reason. And it is a two way street. You don't skip a step going up or going down. Now, that doesn't mean that for somethings you have to tell the next person in the chain what is going on, but letting them know that you are going to the next step is a courtesy you extend to them. If it is something of a personal matter, tell them so and press. Routine matters have to follow the chain of command.

[Condukt]

Over here the ASIVs this year and our SASI coordinated promotion boards based on 80% grades and 20% corps involvement.

Who sees something wrong with that?

Because of that we've had over 16 ASII cadets reach c/2Lt by the end of this year, which is mind boggling. I mean, sure, it's nice that they can keep academic standards high, but it they're giving out officer ranks like skittles for that purpose alone, then why bother considering it special anymore?

Our unit was the largest in the state of California when it started in 2001 (350+), but it has since dropped below 198 cadets and still falling. If this were 2002-2003 then I would understand the large amount of officer cadets, but now it's just overkill.

Before officer rank used to be impossible for an ASII and requirements were set incredibly high for an ASIII. Our Wing Staff has been getting lazy.

At the first Commander's Call of the year in November they announced the first set of promotions for the ASIs (me).

I went from a trainee to a c/SrA, the highest they allowed first year cadets to go. I believe I deserve this rank now because I have been able to learn more about the unit and get involved, but at that time I had to wonder if they were alright in the head.

The ASIVs for the next school year have managed to convince our SASI to make is 50/50 for promotions, but this year was ridiculous.

I'm still going to attempt for officer next year as an ASII, I think I'm doing enough for the unit to qualify for c/2Lt with the new requirements. If I can't get it then that's fine, that tells me they're cracking down.

(I sound conceited :dontgetit:)

[Trinket2]

I am shocked at the amount of responses, so thanks!

Since some have asked for more information here it goes.

I have NO idea why he is doing this! He just one day told us that you couldn't be an officer, and that we need to focus on enlisted before even talking about officers. The only cause for this course of action is the fact that the officers this year were horrible. No goals were accomplished and we got nothing done. Oh, and no my unit is not new it's been around since 1988.

Keep posting!

[SlightlyCatholic]

I have NO idea why he is doing this! He just one day told us that you couldn't be an officer, and that we need to focus on enlisted before even talking about officers. The only cause for this course of action is the fact that the officers this year were horrible.

Well, how was your year? Did you do well with the officers being effectively out of the picture? Maybe he wants you to see that the reason you guys got through the year was because of your NCOs...

[Psybadek]

I am shocked at the amount of responses, so thanks!

Since some have asked for more information here it goes.

I have NO idea why he is doing this! He just one day told us that you couldn't be an officer, and that we need to focus on enlisted before even talking about officers. The only cause for this course of action is the fact that the officers this year were horrible. No goals were accomplished and we got nothing done. Oh, and no my unit is not new it's been around since 1988.

Keep posting!

That doesn't make much since, if nothing got done with cadet officers, what makes him think that they will do something by demoting them to cadet enlisted? The problem isn't with the ranks, it's with the cadet's holding those particular positions. It sounds more like you need to find cadets who can do the jobs more than ridding of ranks all together.

[navytrooper]

Okay, I skimmed over this topic, and I apolagize if this has been brought up already.

Here's an idea! How about right before you hit the first "senior NCO" rank, you have a choice of going to either a sort of "NCO school" OR going to an "Officer Academy."

For example, in MCJROTC, all cadets have the chance to make it to c/SSGT before being offered the choice of either going to an NCO school to make c/GYSGT and above, OR going to an Officer Academy, to get to c/2LT and above. The two "academies" would teach different things, with officer candidates being taught by the Senior Instructor and senior NCO hopefuls taught by the...the other guy. The guy who's enlisted. Sorry, I don't know the terms (never been in JROTC).

I don't know if that would work. Like Tim already said, the NSCC has never had an officer cadet and we work out just fine. Our PO1s are highly respected and our Chiefs are practically worshipped; kind of like how it should be. Our officer corps is completely made up of adults; kind of like having lots of JROTC Instructors.

The culture can be kind of changed, with officers and enlisted appropriately separated.

If you do not pass the school, you should not be able to advance. The senior NCO's should be looked up to with respect (because they passed the school, which shouldn't be too easy), as well as the officers, who went to their own little school.

Just my 2 cents.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: There should also be a certain quota of how many can advance a year. That way, there will be lots more junior enlisted than senior NCOs and officers, just the way it should be.

[Billyd]

Just saw the poll this AM and my first thought was to just ignore it, but as some of you know, I can't pass up a chance like this. First a question or two:

Define "need." I ask this because what in JROTC does the cadet officer corps do that could not be accomplished by the cadet NCOs?

Next, has the OP inquired of his instructors as to the "why" of his decision? I would presume that he has a good reason and is possibly waiting for the question to be asked.




FULL DISCLOSURE: I was a cadet in Civil Air Patrol. When I enlisted in the Air Force, I was a Cadet Major and the Cadet Commander of my squadron.

[DSEddie]

That's my point exactly, BillyD. The cadet corps does not need any time of officer rank, nor does it need enlisted rank. The same mission can be accomplished by naming people to positions that I named in an earlier post and making their rank determined by what year they are in. The only rank necessary in JROTC/ROTC is 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, and 4th year cadet.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Define "need." I ask this because what in JROTC does the cadet officer corps do that could not be accomplished by the cadet NCOs?

I think one interesting thing to point out is that the cadet officer corps is a representation of the commissioned officer. However, the reason that the commissioned officer is able to serve as an officer is because of his or her commission. Without the commission, the cadet officers corps is just a group of new titles for the lower group to take on. What does NCO stand for? It stands for Non-Commissioned Officer, which means that your NCOs are technically officers who serve without commissions (which technically, is any officer because no officers in AFJROTC serve under a commission from the President).

Bottom line? Your officers are closer to NCOs than officers by definition, so why leave the top leadership positions in JROTC to officers only?

[mtnsldr]

Remember, JROTC and ROTC are training tools. The intent (IMO) is to familiarize folks with the military ranks, so that you have potential recruits who already posess an understanding of military structure.

Can you do the whole kit and kaboodle with Cadet Enlisted Ranks? Yeah, you could also do it with only officers. Rank and title mean less than what your actual job occupation requires. If the lowest ranking member is a C/PFC or a C/2LT, is there really any difference? You're still doing the basic entry level job.

Now, its when JROTC loses sight of training to understand rank and responsibility, or when cadets do not understand why they are earning rank over someone else that you begin to see the corruption that screws JROTC/ROTC up. Kids who do not understand that as a leader they serve their subordinates, not the other way around, cause strife and conflict. This is why automatic promotions IMO mean less and less the more you give. If you simply get "prestige" by showing up, and not by accomplishing tasks... well whats the worth in that?

If you're being promoted, take a look at the change in responsibility you're undergoing. You have new responsibilities to your subordinates, and if you're not looking at it that way, you're wrong.

[devin0116]

This is my opinion, you don't NEED officers in JROTC, but I think they help. It teaches all cadets respect, and responsibility. You generally don't salute an enlisted cadet do you?

[Billyd]

This is my opinion, you don't NEED officers in JROTC, but I think they help. It teaches all cadets respect, and responsibility. You generally don't salute an enlisted cadet do you?


And you only need to respect officers? And only officers have responsibilities? I know a NCO or 100 that would disagree with you in no uncertain terms. Myself included.

[C/CLN]

This is my opinion, you don't NEED officers in JROTC, but I think they help. It teaches all cadets respect, and responsibility. You generally don't salute an enlisted cadet do you?
An Enlisted Cadet is never saluted unless it is in response to that Cadet saluting an Officer.
Sometimes ceremonies are slightly different, but whatever.
And you only need to respect officers? And only officers have responsibilities? I know a NCO or 100 that would disagree with you in no uncertain terms. Myself included.
Of course Cadet NCO's need respect, but a little know-nothing freshman kid is more likely to respect someone who he sees as visually different from him in some way.
If you have some degree of separation between who has authority and who does not, a junior ranking Cadet with less time in JROTC is more likely to respect that authoritative person. Remember that these kids are in high school and are not fully mature.

[mtnsldr]

Cadets will give respect to those who receive high levels of respect, not necessarily because of uniform items.

If a C/SGT commands respect, he'll get it over the C/COL who only wears it.

[Billyd]

Remember that these kids are in high school and are not fully mature.

I am a parent of a high school student. My spawn was in AFJROTC until changing schools. Because his current school does not offer a JROTC program, he is precluded from participating. However, as he enters his Jr year in HS, he is eligible to participate in the ROTC program at his current school. I'll explain that one day, just not now.

Maturity has nothing to do with it. Respect for oneself and others, however does. And all the chest candy and other doo dads currently in use do nothing to garner one respect. Respect is earned and one earns it by knowing what one's job is and by doing it. One earns repsect by respecting others regardless of the doo dads on one's uniform. Unless and until those lesson are learned, you may as well be sending urine up the hawser.

As to the question I posed, I have yet to see a definition for need. Nor has the OP dropped in to help us determine the why.

[Psybadek]

You're answer can't be questioned with a need because there isn't a need for cadet officers. All positions can be filled and delegated with cadet enlisted nco's. CAP does it successfully and so can JROTC.

[StarLifter]

Here are the exact regulation statements out of AFJROTCI 36-2001:


7.2. Cadet Rank and Rotation. Consider the strengths and shortcomings of the individual cadets when assigning them to positions to ensure they gain the greatest leadership benefits. Promotions are a motivational tool that are unavailable if rank structure is not managed properly; i.e., avoid promoting cadets to the maximum authorized rank too quickly to ensure proper progression and promotion opportunities.

7.2.1. New units should limit cadet rank during the beginning years to allow for unit growth.

7.2.2. See Table 7.1 for maximum grade authorizations for a cadet corps are:

Table 7.1. Maximum Grade Authorizations
Wing Position Maximum Grade
Wing Commander Cadet Col
Vice Commander Cadet Col
Command Chief Master Sergeant Cadet CMSgt
Operations Group Commander Cadet Col
Operations Group Superintendent Cadet CMSgt
Mission Support Group Commander Cadet Col
Mission Support Group Superintendent Cadet CMSgt
Squadron Commander Cadet Lt Col
Squadron Superintendent Cadet CMSgt
Squadron First Sergeant Cadet SMSgt

7.2.3. The word “cadet” or an abbreviation must be a part of all references to cadet ranks.

7.2.4. All cadets are assigned a permanent grade commensurate with the number of AFJROTC years satisfactorily completed; i.e., the permanent grade for first-year cadets is Airman; second-year, Airman First Class; third-year, Senior Airman; and fourth-year, if offered, Staff Sergeant. Permanent grades are awarded during the second semester of each year. Retention of permanent grades is contingent upon satisfactory performance and behavior as determined by the SASI/ASI. Permanent officer status will be awarded to cadets holding officer positions for two or more grading periods. Exceptions are authorized at the discretion of the SASI and in accordance with published unit guidance.

7.2.5. Cadets may be assigned a temporary grade based on a specific position. Use of a temporary permanent grade pattern is optional and intended to serve as an administrative vehicle for rotation of responsibility and to avoid imbalances in grade structure. Cadets serving in a temporary grade may revert to their permanent grade upon completion of these duties. At the discretion of the SASI, cadets in their final term of AFJROTC may retain the highest rank to which they have been promoted, regardless of course level.


I'll note in 7.2.5, it states, "Use of a temporarypermanent grade pattern is optional and intended to serve as an administrative vehicle for rotation of responsibility and to avoid imbalances in grade structure."

If the SASI determines that the unit can be run without use of officer ranks, it is his right to do so. The only piece the above piece states is that there are permenant rank listings that are to be followed based on years of completion of the program.

There is nothing stating a minimum rank for any of the positions listed; only maximum rank. In theory, the highest rank necessary is C/SSgt, assuming that your SASI is willing to work with the confusion that may ensue as a result of remaining that low in the amount of chevrons on anyone's collar.

Being a C/Officer isn't all it's hyped up to be. You can do the job just as well as a C/'enlist.'

-- StarLifter

[skf_atc]

Star's right, JROTC officer status isn't that great. Its no where like the real military.
In the NSCC I came out as a CPO and I had the respect of the active duty CPO's mess along with the reservists at the NOSC where my NSCC unit drilled.
I was able to get my job done being an NSCC PO3/2/1/CPO just as effectively as could be.

AFJROTC:... I'm not even going to touch that.

[devin0116]

And you only need to respect officers? And only officers have responsibilities? I know a NCO or 100 that would disagree with you in no uncertain terms. Myself included.

No, I did not mean it that way, I meant that in High School Offcers are generally given higher profile jobs that require more responsibility. They deserve respect from the new guys and girls in normal units because they generally work for their positions (unlike mine.)

[Trinket2]

Thanks for the comments!

You have all brought up good points. My SASI asked if we need officers, well obviously the term "need" should be described better. Of course as I type this out I'm starting to think that I should have used another word. Of course you don't need officers in JROTC. The question more is "what can an officer do that an NCO couldn't." I'm not going to lie my whole thought on the matter has been shifted more than I would have thought possible.

I am a first year cadet in the program, but my love for my unit and love of the program has made me interested in what happens to the unit. I for one think that NCO's should be respected as much as an officer. I think they are an important piece that helps keep the program together. The truth of the matter is that NCO's could do exactly what the officers do. So I guess my question is more about why should officers be kept around why are they important?

If this makes no sense I can understand. Oh and yes I'm going to ask my SASI tomorrow why.


Keep posting!

[TruBlu]

The powers generally granted to cadet officers has something to do with the position they hold, and the 'equivalent' rank of the commander of the organization they control compared to their USAF counterparts. So what can a cadet officer do that a cadet enlisted can't? Require a salute is about the only thing I can think of. The rank on someone's lapel doesn't give the authority, rather an authority establishes the rank on the lapel. So I guess the interesting question to be asked in all this is this: "What's the difference between your chevrons facing up or down?" Your answer: Not a thing. Bottom line is this: Your instructor has removed the possibility for fancy blue and silver chevrons because he doesn't think it's necessary in the application of your corps. I'm interested in hearing the answer to your ping tomorrow, as I'm sure most others are.