Cadet NCOs

[SlightlyCatholic]

A question for you JROTC cadets-

Do you feel that cadet NCOs are given less importance in your programs? It seems like with a program that goes to cadet Colonel, a cadet sergeant or the like could appear unimportant or just merely a step to a higher position for the cadet sergeant themselves.

I know as a Sea Cadet, I had to go from Cadet Seaman Recruit to Cadet Chief Petty Officer. I had to wait six months in between promotions, and I was unable to jump ranks or positions. It took me a long time to get promoted, but one thing it did do was allow me to learn my job position and appreciate the promotions more.

Any thoughts?

[devin0116]

You nailed the NCO's role in JROTC programs, nearly pointless. From what I observe, the NCO's at least of my unit do nothing. It's just another stepping stone to that nice Lieutenant rank. I would love if there was more pride in NCO ranks. I remember in middle school there was only a couple of officers maybe 5 tops, at any one time. With a population of about 100 cadets it worked extrememly well. When I reached c/Sergeant first class (didn't know the correct abbreviation) I was so happy. But yeah NCO's have a much lesser role in JROTC units than the military or auxillary units.

[TruBlu]

I hate with a passion the way that JROTC cadets have placed enlisted cadets, especially the NCOs, to the bottom of the barrel. In all my research and observation, the story is much the same across the board: 1 year of "enlisted"/NCO and 2 to 3 years of officership. It's bull.

Myself and several others from my unit (a few have joined this board actually) have recognized it, and now we have made an attempt to strengthen it. We now have a 4 year plan, divided into two "paths" of being a cadet. The first and second year of a cadet is the same for both "paths": airman year and the NCO year. As a third year cadet, they are given the "choice" (cadets who are deemed officer material do) to either stay "enlisted" or move to officership. If they choose to stay "enlisted," they earn the chance at ranks like c/MSgt, c/SMSgt, and c/CMSgt, and of course the all coveted c/1stSgt. If they choose to take the path of officership, cadets have a "company grade" year and a "field grade" year.

In theory, this gives the NCO ranks much more importance and respect, because it takes time and effort to earn those stripes. In fact, as we set up our promotion systems for next year, those cadets will be tested on much of the same material as officers, and will be held to different standards than other cadets. We want to have the cadet NCO return to the "lifeblood" of the corps, as opposed to "just another link in the officer chain."

[devin0116]

But you need to get some cadets to WANT to be NCO's. I'm sure almost all of them will choose officership. So im not sure how to so this. I suppose show that NCO's can get certain benefits and rewards that officers cannot.

[TruBlu]

But you need to get some cadets to WANT to be NCO's. I'm sure almost all of them will choose officership. So im not sure how to so this. I suppose show that NCO's can get certain benefits and rewards that officers cannot.

It's a balancing act. You have to have the two appear to be diametrically opposed to one another to appeal to the larger audiences. What we have done is basically have the NCO not so much as a leader, but a trainer and helper. He/she is the go to when you've got problems and the like. The officer is the leader, the one who catches the flak and the praise. He/she is usually the hard charging strait forward leader who doesn't want to hear all the complaints from the source.

[devin0116]

So basically like the military? Still, cadets are going to want to be the ones at the top. They want to get salutes from enlisted, not the other way around. At least thats the way with my unit.

[El Supremo]

Actually from my experiences in the Army JROTC program. The First Sergeant of a Company does more work than any other rank in the whole Battalion, He teaches drill, is generally the go-to man for the Company Commander, is the disciplinarian for the Company, and is in the promotion process for all those in the company below him.

[El Supremo]

But you need to get some cadets to WANT to be NCO's. I'm sure almost all of them will choose officership. So im not sure how to so this. I suppose show that NCO's can get certain benefits and rewards that officers cannot.

Ironically in our program, we have cadets who never want to become officers,Cadet Command Sergeant Major is what they're gunnin for.

[devin0116]

Wish it was that way in my unit.

[El Supremo]

Wish it was that way in my unit.

It's mostly because our AI is the one with us on a general basis, Our SAI only teaches one a week. Our AI is a Ret. First Sergeant US Army

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

In all of my experiences, the Cadet NCOs were the one's I liked the best... they did all the work, and tried their best to teach me as a LET-1 everything I know. After a while, I gained a disdain for Cadet Officers, as they were, excuse my language, dicks who believed they owned the entire world. One of the reasons why I absolutely dislike Cadet Officers was when I was in Staff; I told my SAI that my primary (I was the S-1 Assistant as a Corporal for two months), that she was getting massages while I was doing 75% of the work. She said that she wasn't, and I was kicked out of the class, transferred over to my AI, and I became a Squad Leader. She later fessed up to it, but still, what's been done is done.

All the credit goes to the Cadet Officer for what goes right, and what goes wrong falls back on the NCO...

[AlphaNovember]

Do you feel that cadet NCOs are given less importance in your programs?

In my program, no. The Cadet NCOs in my battalion each have their specific jobs, and are expected to carry out their duties efficiently and correctly. Squad leaders and team leaders are in charge of the cadets under them, and are expected to manage them correctly, being held responsible for everything their squad/team does and doesn't do. I personally feel that this problem does semi-exist with our Platoon Sergeants as most of the duties within the platoon are taken up by the platoon leader, but even then, the Platoon Sergeant still does take up a few important roles in the platoon.

---------------------
On a side note: In my unit, only seniors fill the officer and senior C/NCO ranks, which means that all of the officers and senior C/NCOs have years of experience under them, and it also means that all cadets are going to be spending at least a year at the very bottom, and 1-2 years in the junior C/NCO ranks, which I feel really increases the respect for rank in my unit, simultaneously increasing the role that each rank has. C/CSM is one of the most sought-after positions in my unit.

[devin0116]

In all of my experiences, the Cadet NCOs were the one's I liked the best... they did all the work, and tried their best to teach me as a LET-1 everything I know. After a while, I gained a disdain for Cadet Officers, as they were, excuse my language, dicks who believed they owned the entire world. One of the reasons why I absolutely dislike Cadet Officers was when I was in Staff; I told my SAI that my primary (I was the S-1 Assistant as a Corporal for two months), that she was getting massages while I was doing 75% of the work. She said that she wasn't, and I was kicked out of the class, transferred over to my AI, and I became a Squad Leader. She later fessed up to it, but still, what's been done is done.

All the credit goes to the Cadet Officer for what goes right, and what goes wrong falls back on the NCO...

Most of the officers in my unit are the same way. Some of them can't even command or execute commands properly. It's basically who is the biggest kiss-a**.

[TruBlu]

I'm starting to back into a corner now, as a cadet officer. I'm ready to throw down!!! :D Just kidding. As with high school students, and anyone slightly immature, there will always be those that "one up," and to most cadets, you can't "one up" an officer. It's bull, plain and simple. The key to having a good unit is to have a good foundation, and the foundation of the military is built on the enlisted men. So in JROTC the "enlisted" cadets and cadet NCOs need a good foundation for a good unit.

[AirForceAlways]

*WARNING - UNNECESSARILY LONG POST AHEAD*

This should be good. Haha...Cadet NCO's, as most have said, are total stepping stones, and it pisses me off. Right now, I'm a C/MSgt, and will probably (providing that I return to JROTC in my senior year) be locked in at C/CMSgt. Fine by me. But there are those who think that being one of only a small handful of very senior C/NCOs just isn't good enough for them, so they tend to look down upon those positions. Now, though we may not be modeled rankwise directly after the actual military, there should still be some respect attached to wearing all those stripes. Just because people have to salute you as a cadet officer, doesn't mean you earned it.

As a C/NCO, my job is the main command and operation of the flight and those who are under me. My boss, what we call our DCO (Director of Cadet Operations, who is a C/1st Lt) has the job of commanding, and efficiently running, the squadron, consisting of 5 flights. Now, my boss doesn't get very much face time with all the people under him. He can't go waltzing around, introducing himself to each cadet in each flight. That's where the C/NCOs come in. I, as a flight commander, get so much face time with all the people under me, I don't know what to do with it all. That, precisely, is what I love about being a C/NCO. I get to still be in command of something, but I have the ability to get to know and work with the people under me. That's still an accomplishment in my unit, you know. It's taken me over two years to get where I am, but people regard it as nothing. It's all about getting that officer rank. It's just not a big deal, and it kind of bothers me.

In my unit, there are certain requirements that you must meet to qualify for a C/Officer rank. I personally have not met those requirements in the given time, so I cannot be a cadet officer. And I have no problem with that. I think I'm content being that one Cadet Chief that everyone looks up to and goes to when they need help, not the big bad Lieutenant who's familiar with no one and knows only his job and paperwork. I think that's why in most units we see that there are "too many chiefs, not enough indians" as someone said here not too long ago. C/NCOs need to have more emphasis put upon their ranks, that way they might get a little more respect, and, hell, maybe more cadets will want to be that old Sarge who knows everyone and everything.

[Century0]

In my unit, rank is not so much as important as position is. For example, our battalion S-2 is a NCO - a C/SFC. Officers do have their own things to do in our battalion, but most of the work is handled by company NCOs. So, in a way, our NCOs have not been devalued yet. We're generally just as respected as the officers, and more helpful than them. Now, I can not say the same is true for myself - I'm a C/MSgt and I've worked hard to earn it. I generally do not have time to help out, as I'm most of the time working. However, lately, my battalion has been giving out promotions like hot cakes. We've had LET-1s as C/Sgt, which does not happen often. We've also been giving LET-2s C/SSG. And we also have a few LET-4s which are still C/SSG, because of their performance.

And to be honest, in my battalion, there are quite a few cadets who do not wish to become officers. They would rather stick as C/1Sgt and C/CSM. I guess they like the idea of perhaps one day having those positions in the active duty military, and know the true importance of them, and thus want to display that same importance to a JROTC program.

[army_grunt_11B]

In my program, the only cadet NCO rank I have any respect for is C/CMSGT. But in retro-spect the only officer rank I have respect for is C/ LT. Col. I feel like only me and my Chief do all the work for the program, hell we have 5 officers in a 110 person corp, and Im the only one who knows how to run CIMS, even though we have taught every one above C/SMSGT to use it. Its sad. But back on track, The reson I only respect Chief is the fact that 9 people ran for the rank, and only one person got it, so I know they are good to go.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Wow. These are some great, in-depth answers. I want to thank all you cadets for taking the time to respond, and I'd invite any other cadets to share their thoughts. Great thread!

[Drill for life]

Ironically in our program, we have cadets who never want to become officers,Cadet Command Sergeant Major is what they're gunnin for.

That is the rank I wanted to be this year but they made a LET 1 senior this rank. I mae Compny Commander. I think you should be a officer for your senior(LET 4) year unles you are on staff or a team commander.

[devin0116]

Everyone in my ASII flight (like 8 people) are c/SSgt or higher.
2 c/Captain
2 c/1LT
1 c/ TSgt
4 c/SSgt

Anyone see anything wrong with this. I think only one or two people in my flight deserve a cadet officer rank. I think that I should try and strip officer ranks to only staff positions unless someone is very qualified.

When ASI year starts and all the newbies come in. There should be a competition between all of them. Who ever performs the best at drill, commanding, general knowledge should be put at the rank deemed necessary (enlisted) and lead the flight. Is that a good system?

[Drill for life]

Most of the officers in my unit are the same way. Some of them can't even command or execute commands properly. It's basically who is the biggest kiss-a**.

I feel like Trublu. I don't want to be a officer but I have excepted my rank and position and have come to like and respect it. I have learedn form y LET1 and LET 2 years and am going to use my experience to be the best Cadet officer I can be. Cadet Officer's in my unit are Suck-ups to my SAI and really can't do anything except for there job(My experience and observation from bei g with them for three years). Cadet Officer's usually forget they come from(C/NCO ranks) and forget how hard it was to earn that metal on there metal I will never take a C/NCO for granted because I know as a C/NCO how much more work you have to do to be noticed by your SAI and AI.

[Sanguinary]

Actually from my experiences in the Army JROTC program. The First Sergeant of a Company does more work than any other rank in the whole Battalion, He teaches drill, is generally the go-to man for the Company Commander, is the disciplinarian for the Company, and is in the promotion process for all those in the company below him.

This is very similar to how our Battalion is. Our C/1SGs tend to do much of the work with very little respect actually given to what they do or have done.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Cadet Officer in my opinion are Kiss-asses and really cant do anything except for there job. CAdet Officer's usually forget they come from the C/NCO ranks and forget how hard it was

Would you cadets say that this is a JROTC phenomenon, or only in some units? I doubt all cadets are "kiss asses", but I'm sure there are bad apples in every barrel.

[Drill for life]

Would you cadets say that this is a JROTC phenomenon, or only in some units? I doubt all cadets are "kiss asses", but I'm sure there are bad apples in every barrel.

You are right about that that's why in the fifties,sixties and seventies the Army had rank for "Hard-Stripers" and Specialist. Some people just can't handle being a Leader.

[-BuLL-]

I feel like Trublu. I don't want to be a officer but I have excepted my rank and position and have come to like and respect it. I have learedn form y LET1 and LET 2 years and am going to use my experience to be the best Cadet officer I can be. Cadet Officer's in my unit and personal are Kiss-a@#$% and really cant do anything except for there job. Cadet Officer's usually forget they come from(C/NCO ranks) and forget how hard it was to earn that metal on there metal I will never take a C/NCO for granted because I know as a C/NCO how much more work you have to do to be noticed by your SAI and AI.

Not trying to get on you or anything but you might want to clean that up before a Mod gets a hold of you. Just looking out.

[Drill for life]

I know. I am just don't understand how C/NCO's don't get any recognition at all and a C/NCO sucks up to get that metal on there collar. I'm sure nobody on this forum has done this but I know people in my program do that. If you work hard and do as much as you can you should be promoted and given a psition but I know that's not how most units work. We just shouldn't complain, Whatever happens happens because God let's it happen. Put your faith in God, do your job and you will be noticed and rewarded. The thing about Cadets is that we want to be noticed right then and there, most instructors don't do that they ait to acknowledge you at the Award Ceremony or net year.

[armysc_25b]

The thing about Cadets is that we want to be noticed right then and there, most instructors don't do that they ait to acknowledge you at the Award Ceremony or net year.

Think about what awards are presented at an Awards Ceremony. Some awards are only presented once a year, and are usually cumulative of that school year's accomplishments. Realize something, while it's nice to get a pat on the back everytime you do something right, the fact about life (especially in the military it appears) is that some good deeds go unpunished, and typically your work makes your boss look good (not meant in a bad way at all, I'm just saying that based mostly on my opinion of a flawed awards system).

[SlightlyCatholic]

The thing about Cadets is that we want to be noticed right then and there, most instructors don't do that they ait to acknowledge you at the Award Ceremony or net year.

If you're doing something for recognition, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Do what you need to do, go above and beyond when possible, and your ribbon rack will fill itself. Rank and awards are an outside sign of inward integrity.

EDIT- That's what rank and awards should be, althought I'm aware that some people receive one or both under questionable circumstances. When the superior has his ducks in a row and the subordinate does the same, then rank and awards will be given per the description above. I just wanted to add that little "disclaimer", if you will.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

See, now this may sound a little vain on my part, but I do the job because I love it, but I would like to have a little recognition every now and then. I mean, I'm the one that gives them PT, I'm the one that mainly disciplines them, I'm the one that keeps them on task, while my CO/XO let them do whatever the hell they want, and when something goes wrong, I get blamed for it. Something goes right, the CO gets awarded. Perhaps I'm being a little (pardon my language) bitch, but that's just the way I feel. I've seen some of the greatest leaders in my school go without any outside awards, while the crappiest people I've ever been around are walking down the hall playing jingle bells.

[SlightlyCatholic]

See, now this may sound a little vain on my part, but I do the job because I love it, but I would like to have a little recognition every now and then. I mean, I'm the one that gives them PT, I'm the one that mainly disciplines them, I'm the one that keeps them on task, while my CO/XO let them do whatever the hell they want, and when something goes wrong, I get blamed for it. Something goes right, the CO gets awarded. Perhaps I'm being a little (pardon my language) bitch, but that's just the way I feel. I've seen some of the greatest leaders in my school go without any outside awards, while the crappiest people I've ever been around are walking down the hall playing jingle bells.

I don't think it's too much to feel that you deserve an award, but what I'm saying is that it's a bad move to take a position or volunteer for a task just because you think a piece of colored cloth is waiting for you on the other side. With regards to your complaint about officers getting awards, I've seen a very simple principle but into practice (and this is from my experience in the Sea Cadets): if one of your subordinates has more awards than you do, then it makes you look bad. I've seen adult officers (what would be your JROTC adult instructors) give awards to top people to make their subordinates respect them more. Of course, that respect can fall apart if the superior is made to seem like some sort of command puppet rather than earning his or her awards.

This is an interesting topic to branch into: Do you automatically have more respect for a superior who has a lot of ribbons/awards? Do you look down upon someone who has a lot of rank but a small ribbon rack? ("You" is directed towards everyone.)

[Century0]

Well, in my unit, this generally does not happen. Most of the people with big ribbon racks have earned their ribbons. This is not completely the case though. Our battalion commander has the largest ribbon rack, but yet she is the worse one we have had since I have been in the program. No one at all respects her or listens to her commands, and she tries to circumvent the regulations for my unit, which normally results in her getting publicly humiliated in front of companies by their officers or by her staff. She has several awards that I question how she got. I presume, being as my job is awards, I should take a moment to look through her rack and look at the reasons why she got them.

As well, in my unit, once again, even those with small ribbon racks but high ranks, are generally respected. We've had LET5s with only 2LT and 2 rows of ribbons, but yet be one of the most respected people. It just depends how you conduct yourself. That's the most important thing in my opinion.

Now, as far as people with large ribbon racks and high rank goes, I could care less. I care more about the person and how they respect others. If they show me respect, I'll show it back to them in turn. If they respect the unit regulations and show proper military bearing, and things of that sort, then I have no problem showing them my respect. If they're the type of leader that you can tell they earned their position by simply kissing up, or they earned their ribbons by kissing up, then I will definitely show little to no respect toward them.

[soccermark23]

I believe one thing that all of you cadets need to do is take a step back and stop worrying about the size of your ribbon rack or anyone else's for that matter. In all reality it doesn't really matter, respect should not be based upon how colorful someone's chest candy is but on how well they do their job and how they perform their duties.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I believe one thing that all of you cadets need to do is take a step back and stop worrying about the size of your ribbon rack or anyone else's for that matter. In all reality it doesn't really matter, respect should not be based upon how colorful someone's chest candy is but on how well they do their job and how they perform their duties.

I think at the end of the day, this is what we all need to remember.The purpose of my questions were merely to flesh out some trends I've seen among cadets and cadet programs. Thanks to all for the great input.

[TheLegalShark]

I think an issue like this really is dependent on the program (JROTC/CAP/USACC/USNSCC/etc......) and individual units. Since nobody brought up CAP I will here. The ranks themselves in CAP are all stepping stones to the next level. For those that are unaware of how the CAP cadet program works, ranks are tied to achievements which are part of a training syllabus. When a cadet completes an achievement they advance in rank through the enlisted grades. This changes to a minimum of two achievements between officer grades. The C/Airmen grades are a stepping stone to the C/NCO grades which are a stepping stone to the C/Officer grades which are a stepping stone to completing the Cadet Program.

This can make it very hit or miss as far as what responsibilities C/NCOs may have in a given unit. Because ranks are tied to achievements and not position, it is possible to have a unit where most of the cadets standing in a flight rank from C/SSgt - C/CMSgt because they completed the achievements but the unit did not have enough staff positions for them. It is also possible to have a unit where every position in the chain of command is filled by C/NCOs because none of the cadets have advanced to the C/Officer ranks yet. There are also units where C/Officers, NCOs, and Airmen fulfill their expected roles, but these are generally fewer and further between.

In my experience, the unit I was a member of from 2001 - 2007 fit into the first two categories. When I joined as a cadet the entire unit was comprised cadet airmen and junior ncos. By the time I transferred to the Senior side as a cadet officer the majority of the unit was C/Officers and Senior NCOs with a few C/Airmen.

[flyBoy2010]

One big difference between CAP and JROTC is that regulations regarding promotions are better defined in the CAP and also more strictly enforced. The AFJROTC regulations loosely define how the rank system should go and leaves the details up to the individual unit. That plays a huge role in how important certain ranks are and how hard it is to move up in rank.

[SlightlyCatholic]

One interesting aspect of Sea Cadets is that cadets never achieve officer status. The highest a cadet is able to go as a cadet is Chief Petty Officer (the paygrade is E-7). This allows for much more small unit leadership and really drives home the importance of followership as the cadet never really leaves the "enlisted" side of the house. In my opinion, the program does a very good job of driving home the importance of NCO leadership as units can succeed or fail based on the performance of the Leading Petty Officer or Command Chief. However, our "Officer Corps" is filled with adult volunteers, which can cause problems like parents joining just to benefit their sons or daughters or Commanding Officers who have no real leadership experience.

[TruBlu]

I think it's about time in this thread to say nothing is perfect. Also, it's about time to say, stop talking about how much you don't like it, and start talking about what you are going to do about it. As cadets, we have the power to change things that affect us, because we see first hand. Get the lead out of your asses and start collaborating as to some ideas to solve this.

I've already posted what my unit is trying to do, but I'll say it again.

Myself and several others from my unit (a few have joined this board actually) have recognized it, and now we have made an attempt to strengthen it. We now have a 4 year plan, divided into two "paths" of being a cadet. The first and second year of a cadet is the same for both "paths": airman year and the NCO year. As a third year cadet, they are given the "choice" (cadets who are deemed officer material do) to either stay "enlisted" or move to officership. If they choose to stay "enlisted," they earn the chance at ranks like c/MSgt, c/SMSgt, and c/CMSgt, and of course the all coveted c/1stSgt. If they choose to take the path of officership, cadets have a "company grade" year and a "field grade" year.

In theory, this gives the NCO ranks much more importance and respect, because it takes time and effort to earn those stripes. In fact, as we set up our promotion systems for next year, those cadets will be tested on much of the same material as officers, and will be held to different standards than other cadets. We want to have the cadet NCO return to the "lifeblood" of the corps, as opposed to "just another link in the officer chain."

[SlightlyCatholic]

Get the lead out of your asses and start collaborating as to some ideas to solve this.

I think we should be careful not to assume that someone's discussion of a problem on this forum automatically translates into complacency in the real world. I'm sure many cadets here use this forum as a launching point for problem solving, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that people who discuss problems with their programs here have lead in their asses. I would argue that their very willingness to come to the forum and cite these problems demonstrates in itself an effort to be proactive and solve what they find problematic as a cadet. Is there idle talk here? Certainly, but I don't see why theoretical discussion equates to lethargy on the practical end of things.

[TruBlu]

I think we should be careful not to assume that someone's discussion of a problem on this forum automatically translates into complacency in the real world. I'm sure many cadets here use this forum as a launching point for problem solving, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that people who discuss problems with their programs here have lead in their asses. I would argue that their very willingness to come to the forum and cite these problems demonstrates in itself an effort to be proactive and solve what they find problematic as a cadet.

I don't mean to come through as harsh, in fact I was just trying to get a point across. Maybe it's because I'm a very "action oriented" person who likes problem solving and seeing things get done. One of my "gigs" is to try to get people not only thinking about subjects, but acting on them also.

I am not saying this thread is crap, I think it's great that this came up. Now I think it's time to get some ideas out there as to ways to fix this problem. I apologize if I caused upset over that remark.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I don't mean to come through as harsh, in fact I was just trying to get a point across. Maybe it's because I'm a very "action oriented" person who likes problem solving and seeing things get done. One of my "gigs" is to try to get people not only thinking about subjects, but acting on them also.

I am not saying this thread is crap, I think it's great that this came up. Now I think it's time to get some ideas out there as to ways to fix this problem. I apologize if I caused upset over that remark.


No apology necessary. I know what you're saying- complaining should be the first step to solving a problem instead of prolonging one, and I agree with you. I just think we need to keep in perspective the fact that complaining in and of itself isn't bad...it's what we do with it that matters. You can't solve a problem unless you've identified it.

[TruBlu]

No apology necessary. I know what you're saying- complaining should be the first step to solving a problem instead of prolonging one, and I agree with you. I just think we need to keep in perspective the fact that complaining in and of itself isn't bad...it's what we do with it that matters. You can't solve a problem unless you've identified it.

Indeed, and I think we have thoroughly identified it at this point, and it's time to move on to a different train of thought. You would agree?

[SlightlyCatholic]

I would say that the train of thought of this thread depends on the posters in it, but I wouldn't mind doing some problem solving. Go for it.

[TruBlu]

Well then, let's hear it. I've noticed this thread has come to a halt as soon as discussing a plan of action came up. Lets get some ideas out here. I'll start us off with a few.


Make the higher ranking cadet NCO ranks only available to higher class students. Ex: You cannot become a c/MSgt until your junior year, or a c/CMSgt until your senior year.

Increase the amount of cadet NCO positions by creating cadet NCO positions instead of "deputy" positions. Ex: Instead of having a "deputy commander of logistics," have a "logistics NCO." Or, instead of having a "deputy flight commander," replace that with the "flight sergeant."

Decrease the amount of cadet officer positions by making cadet NCOIC positions available. This will also improve the quality of your officer corps. Ex: Instead of having a "computer officer" and "technology officer," why not combine the two into one and replace the officer with a NCOIC?

Begin testing for rank. Cadets will have to earn the amount of stripes on their collars (and shoulders), giving more respect for those higher ranks. How so? Only the qualified cadets would get those ranks.


Well, there's a few to get us all thinking.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I think a good rule to follow is what's called the Law of Subsidiarity (it's a term used in Catholic social thought, but it applies here as well). Basically, the lowest member possible in a given hierarchy should be afforded the most responsibility within reason and good order. For example, eight soldiers should not be directly led by a Captain but rather by a Sergeant. The Sergeant is lower but is a more appropriate leader in proportion to the group he or she is leading. If you want to boil it down to a word, I think that word would be "efficiency". Nothing stops progress like a rampant burocracy.

EDIT- Just as a sidenote, another good rule of positioning leadership roles is to know your people and to see where they want to be instead of always thinking about where you want them. Sure, some people will have to fill roles regardless of what they want, but people are much more willing to do their jobs effectively if they have an interest in what they're assigned to. Someone who shows interest in Supply shouldn't be in charge of Color Guard if someone who is interested in Color Guard wants that role. Just another tip to help.

[Sanguinary]

Well then, let's hear it. I've noticed this thread has come to a halt as soon as discussing a plan of action came up. Lets get some ideas out here. I'll start us off with a few.


Make the higher ranking cadet NCO ranks only available to higher class students. Ex: You cannot become a c/MSgt until your junior year, or a c/CMSgt until your senior year.

Increase the amount of cadet NCO positions by creating cadet NCO positions instead of "deputy" positions. Ex: Instead of having a "deputy commander of logistics," have a "logistics NCO." Or, instead of having a "deputy flight commander," replace that with the "flight sergeant."

Decrease the amount of cadet officer positions by making cadet NCOIC positions available. This will also improve the quality of your officer corps. Ex: Instead of having a "computer officer" and "technology officer," why not combine the two into one and replace the officer with a NCOIC?

Begin testing for rank. Cadets will have to earn the amount of stripes on their collars (and shoulders), giving more respect for those higher ranks. How so? Only the qualified cadets would get those ranks.


Well, there's a few to get us all thinking.

I would like to add promotion boards to this. This is something I typed for another forum.

A promotion board is a board formed by voting cadets in order to review a cadet a of a lower rank for possible promotion.

In my BN we do a monthly promotion board held for 2 days consecutively composed of our 2 C/1SGs and our BN C/CSM. This purpose of our board is as stated and applies only to cadet enlisted though. Cadet Officers are appointed by the SAI and BN Commander/BN XO accordingly.

If you would like more information on this please contact me. I was the former BN C/CSM and a former C/1SG. I’m now the Senior Cadet Adviser of the promotion boards. I essentially make sure new C/1SGs and C/CSMs know how to properly do the process and give tips and tricks to it. I also sit in on the promotion boards if any members of the board are missing or unable to attend.


Our BN C/CSM and C/1SGs are chosen by the SAI with recommendations from the previous holders of those positions along with cadet officers. This allows us to have a system of "checks and balances" so to speak. This allows people who earn the positions, to get them. Every document including promotion papers require multiple signatures(usually three) to get promoted or denied.

[TruBlu]

I would like to add promotion boards to this. He is something I typed for another forum.

A good thought, but I do have a question. Should every promo wanna be see a panel? That sounds like a logistical nightmare for a large unit (and by what you are describing, you don't have the smallest unit). A promo board should be in place for rank, certain ones that is. I'd say all officers see a board, and ranks like "E-4" and up. Then you are testing for cadet NCO and cadet officer ranks. Reason for not a board for the others? Simple, their are a lot of them, and most will be new people that those on the board probably haven't had time for proper interaction.

Note: I said a pay grade for cadets because multiple "branches" are being represented, and that's the uniform way of saying it. Using pay grade is not standard practice, but I think the situation permits.

[Drill for life]

Well then, let's hear it. I've noticed this thread has come to a halt as soon as discussing a plan of action came up. Lets get some ideas out here. I'll start us off with a few.


Make the higher ranking cadet NCO ranks only available to higher class students. Ex: You cannot become a c/MSgt until your junior year, or a c/CMSgt until your senior year.

Increase the amount of cadet NCO positions by creating cadet NCO positions instead of "deputy" positions. Ex: Instead of having a "deputy commander of logistics," have a "logistics NCO." Or, instead of having a "deputy flight commander," replace that with the "flight sergeant."

Decrease the amount of cadet officer positions by making cadet NCOIC positions available. This will also improve the quality of your officer corps. Ex: Instead of having a "computer officer" and "technology officer," why not combine the two into one and replace the officer with a NCOIC?

Begin testing for rank. Cadets will have to earn the amount of stripes on their collars (and shoulders), giving more respect for those higher ranks. How so? Only the qualified cadets would get those ranks.


Well, there's a few to get us all thinking.

Great Idea. I love it and will start somethig like that in my unit next year.

[fjer]

Just to give you an example, at West Point ranks are given based on position, and the highest NCO positions are given a great deal of prestige (the brigade CSM is probably second only to the First Captain (brigade commander) in that regard). In addition, for company level staff positions (activities, regs and discipline, security, ect), there is both an officer and NCO position, each with slightly differing responsibilities.

[PhilK]

The first step I would recommend doing is instead of automatically having a BN headquarters, adjust your unit structure based on the number of cadets you actually have.

Examples: (All these are based on an Infantry unit structure)

9 Cadets = A Squad (1 C/SSG, 2 C/SGT)

28-30 Cadets = A Platoon (1 C/2LT (or C/1LT), 1 C/SFC, 4 C/SSG, 8 C/SGT)

90-100 Cadets = A Company (1 C/CPT, 4 C/1LT (or C/2LT), 1 C/1SG, 3 C/SFC, 17 C/SSG (16 Squads plus a Supply SGT), 32 C/SGT)

300-400 Cadets = A Battalion (Too many to list out.....)

You get the point.

If you fall inbetween some of these levels then you adjust slightly, but you don't automaticlly move up.

This limits the Officer/NCO slots and makes it more competative to get the higher positions.

[TruBlu]

The first step I would recommend doing is instead of automatically having a BN headquarters, adjust your unit structure based on the number of cadets you actually have.

Examples: (All these are based on an Infantry unit structure)

9 Cadets = A Squad (1 C/SSG, 2 C/SGT)

28-30 Cadets = A Platoon (1 C/2LT (or C/1LT), 1 C/SFC, 4 C/SSG, 8 C/SGT)

90-100 Cadets = A Company (1 C/CPT, 4 C/1LT (or C/2LT), 1 C/1SG, 3 C/SFC, 17 C/SSG (16 Squads plus a Supply SGT), 32 C/SGT)

300-400 Cadets = A Battalion (Too many to list out.....)

You get the point.

If you fall inbetween some of these levels then you adjust slightly, but you don't automaticlly move up.

This limits the Officer/NCO slots and makes it more competative to get the higher positions.

It's interesting that you post this because the biggest problem that JROTC units have is organizational structure. I've personally seen a unit (mine...) of about 100 cadets operate as a "group," the equivalent to the battalion. Needless to say, we aren't a "group" anymore, but a "squadron" because we made this stark observation.

One thing that you have failed to address in your structures that will skew the numbers a little bit is the cadet staff that is required to have a self sufficient unit. The process should be this: access your current situation (1), find out what you actually have personnel wise (2), create a model that best fits your actual size (3), and implement the model (4). 4 simple steps.

Sure that sounds like an organizational structure discussion, but who makes up that structure? Well the cadet officers, cadet NCOs, and other cadets do. Knowing your structure is key to knowing when to use cadet officers and cadet NCOs for certain positions. Remember this, there is always a target ratio for your unit, about 1:4 or 1:5 cadet officers and cadet "enlisted." Most units far exceed said ratios (my unit was about 1:1 to 1:2) because they don't realize that they can use their cadet NCOs instead of appointing more cadet officers. Because we realized it, we have the ratio at about 1:4, and a lot more cadet NCOs. Changing your structure around a little, or simply replacing rank with "lower" rank will make the cadet NCO a much stronger status.

[PhilK]

Remember this, there is always a target ratio for your unit, about 1:4 or 1:5 cadet officers and cadet "enlisted."

Who's target is that?

In the Infantry we have a 1:30 Officer to Enlisted ratio and that ratio goes down as you move up.

As for a support staff, that is what we call "additional duties". If your structure does not call for a dedicated person in that position, then those things that need to get done fall onto one of the NCOs.

[armysc_25b]

Decrease the amount of cadet officer positions by making cadet NCOIC positions available. This will also improve the quality of your officer corps. Ex: Instead of having a "computer officer" and "technology officer," why not combine the two into one and replace the officer with a NCOIC?


I never claimed to be an expert on Air Force unit structure, and probably never will be. Anywho...

In the Army, for each staff section (minus S3, get there in a minute) at battalion level (and I'm pretty sure brigade, but not 100% certain since I don't commonly interface at that level), there is ONE officer assigned to each staff section (S1, S2, S4, and if your unit has it S6), whom are usually senior 1LT's or CPT's. Each of those shops then has an NCOIC, typically a SFC. That said, I comment on things I've personally observed:


I've only seen one S2 OIC, who was a 2LT fresh from training from the MI Branch, otherwise the shop was run by a SGT/SSG and a couple SPC's (in a decent sized battalion); whereas where I am now our S2 shop is one man strong, a SSG
Unit size will dictate, but the S4 OIC may not be "entirely necessary", as my current unit's S4 shop is two or three strong (a SFC and a couple SPC's), and she has the company supply clerks (of the three companies, a SGT, SPC, and PFC) under her as well
My current unit doesn't have an S6, but instead has a smaller IMO shop headed by a SSG with a SPC and PV2 currently

Now let me go back to S3. Though I haven't personally observed it in either unit, I've heard discussions in both units brought up about appointing an assistant S3 (who'd be a CPT since the S3 is a MAJ). Another thing is that the NCOIC for the S3 shop is a MSG instead of a SFC (notice the MSG doesn't have the diamond, I personally have found JROTC programs to misuse the E8/E9 paygrades but that's discussed elsewhere, my senior year we had a 1SG who didn't have a diamond though she was a c/MSG).

So if I remember correctly, during the '04-'05 school year (my senior year), my program had a c/Officer in the following positions (a couple extra positions listed as well due to the size of the senior class and how many were c/Officers): BC, XO, IG, JAG, S1, S3, S4, S5, S6, A-E CO CDR, and A-E CO XO's. 19 c/Officers in an organization that was 115 or so in strength, not a bad number. The main problem we had, however, was a lack of senior cadets in senior c/NCO ranks. Our c/SGM (again, misuse of the E9 grade as he should've been a c/CSM) was a senior, as well as our S2 (c/SFC), and I think we had one more senior who was a c/SFC. Otherwise, the senior c/NCO's were mostly trusted sophmore's (if they hadn't been promoted to c/2LT due to serving as XO's).

Unfortunately I can't remember much more in terms of specifics right now, but I'll append to this if I can find pictures that spark my thoughts again.

[Drill for life]

You had a JAG in your JROTC unit Armysc_25b? What did they do?

[TruBlu]

Who's target is that?

In the Infantry we have a 1:30 Officer to Enlisted ratio and that ratio goes down as you move up.

As for a support staff, that is what we call "additional duties". If your structure does not call for a dedicated person in that position, then those things that need to get done fall onto one of the NCOs.

That would be the target of our entire fighting forces. Because there are so many figures that target this ratio, it's hard to find a definite answer. I've pulled a source right here (http://www.g2mil.com/shrinkofficers.htm) discussing the officer to enlisted ratios of the military, and towards the bottom there is a chart giving an end product ratio. My estimates of 1:4 and 1:5 were a little off, but in my defense I have seen those used elsewhere and over time it has steadily shown a decline in the ratio over the years, and this article is 6 years old now. But, they have these ratios:


Army 1:5.27
Navy 1:6
Marine Corps 1:8.39
Air Force 1:5.6
Collective 1:6.315 - my own figure from the averages of all four.


Now the reason that I choose to use the ratio of entire branches is because they are self-sufficient (well not fully, but for all practical purposes are able to perform their mission within their own branch). JROTC units also have to be self-sufficient (well once again not fully because they have HQ behind them, but for all practical purposes are able to perform their mission within their unit). With that, the two correlate, and you can draw that ratio to each other. Maybe my speculation was a little low there, but not so much here I believe because I have a fairly legit source (an ex Marine who has published dozens of articles for the military), and I wasn't far off in the first place.

"Additional duties" don't work out too well in JROTC. If a cadet where to do a duty correctly and in full, they need to be in that capacity full time. To further solidify this, cadets are not "full time." They are students before cadets and only have about five to eight hours of classroom instruction to get these "additional duties" and "primary duties" and student work done. Sure, cadets could take time out, but for argumentative sake, they are not allotted that time for their duties to be adequately performed.

[TruBlu]

I never claimed to be an expert on Air Force unit structure, and probably never will be. Anywho...

Those mentioned positions are not standard AF practice, but I have encountered those positions before in units (not personally but through interacting with other cadets from other units and branches).

So if I remember correctly, during the '04-'05 school year (my senior year), my program had a c/Officer in the following positions (a couple extra positions listed as well due to the size of the senior class and how many were c/Officers): BC, XO, IG, JAG, S1, S3, S4, S5, S6, A-E CO CDR, and A-E CO XO's. 19 c/Officers in an organization that was 115 or so in strength, not a bad number.

Quick question about this. You said one BC, and A-E CO CDRs with XOs. Where are the Platoon COs? Did you guys not have platoons and just companies, or am I reading your post incorrectly?

The main problem we had, however, was a lack of senior cadets in senior c/NCO ranks. Our c/SGM (again, misuse of the E9 grade as he should've been a c/CSM) was a senior, as well as our S2 (c/SFC), and I think we had one more senior who was a c/SFC. Otherwise, the senior c/NCO's were mostly trusted sophmore's (if they hadn't been promoted to c/2LT due to serving as XO's).

And that's the problem that most JROTC units suffer from. The cadet NCO ranks are not respected and/or sought after because of the "importance" of cadet officers.
__________________________________________________ ______________
But lets hear some more ideas as to how we can fix this problem.

[armysc_25b]

So if I remember correctly, during the '04-'05 school year (my senior year), my program had a c/Officer in the following positions (a couple extra positions listed as well due to the size of the senior class and how many were c/Officers): BC, XO, IG, JAG, S1, S3, S4, S5, S6, A-E CO CDR, and A-E CO XO's. 19 c/Officers in an organization that was 115 or so in strength, not a bad number.

Quick question about this. You said one BC, and A-E CO CDRs with XOs. Where are the Platoon COs? Did you guys not have platoons and just companies, or am I reading your post incorrectly?


Each company was one platoon. My senior year somebody decided to add an unnecessary PLT SGT position to the companies. The way we were organized back then, the staff wasn't assigned to a company since we didn't have a Headquarters Company (which they've since established by working with the school to place staff together). So on average, our companies were about 20 strong. 7 of the 20 were leadership personnel (CO, XO, 1SG, PLT SGT, 3x SQD LDR's). 35% of the company population was leadership in some way. Just a little higher than what that 1:5.27 turns into in terms of percentage.

When I came back from Korea, I spent a lot of time with the program, and saw many things I liked and some I didn't. The establishment of a Headquarters Company was a good thing for the unit, and I feel they did it right by not establishing a "typical" CoC for the company (i.e. a separate CO, XO, & 1SG; instead the staff managed themselves).

The main problem we had, however, was a lack of senior cadets in senior c/NCO ranks. Our c/SGM (again, misuse of the E9 grade as he should've been a c/CSM) was a senior, as well as our S2 (c/SFC), and I think we had one more senior who was a c/SFC. Otherwise, the senior c/NCO's were mostly trusted sophomore's (if they hadn't been promoted to c/2LT due to serving as XO's).

And that's the problem that most JROTC units suffer from. The cadet NCO ranks are not respected and/or sought after because of the "importance" of cadet officers.

Not always the case. Our SAI felt that certain cadets served better in c/NCO roles while others made better c/Officers. He was pretty good at judging who would be good leaders, and placed them in leadership roles in companies to prep them to be BC or XO. Those he felt were strong leaders to counterpart the c/Officers were the ones that advanced through the c/NCO ranks and typically ended up c/SGM. The ones that weren't as strong of leaders, but had time in the program or were cadets that others came to for whatever typically rose to c/SFC and usually were tasked to support staff to allow the younger cadets to progress. Where our system fell apart was that soon the LET-2's were progressing too fast and now because of a lack of a standardized promotion system were hitting c/SFC and c/MSG before the end of that year. In his defense, however, many of the promotions were not just on him, as he would get with staff constantly and seek their advice as peers on promotions and awards (my LET-4 year our seniors actually made many of the decisions on Organizational Awards, and almost every promotion was either blessed off by the BC, myself (XO), or SGM).

He once told me that if he could've, he'd of made me a c/Warrant Officer (I had the work ethic of a c/NCO, the management style of a c/Officer, and the knowledge of the program to be an effective c/WO). My first year, I didn't make it past c/PFC, which was normal. My second year, I spent the first 6 months of the program as a c/CPL, during that time I floated back and forth as a staff assistant and working with my company in a SQD LDR, then PLT SGT role. I was promoted to c/SGT in the beginning of February that year, and assumed the role of 1SG due to rank (for whatever reason, the way schedules worked out everyone in the company was a c/SGT and below minus the CO). I held that role for 2 weeks, and in that time I also transitioned into a redesigned S6 staff position (after my duties were moved to being under S5 to get me away from the S6 at the time). Once settled in, I was promoted to c/2LT. I spent 3 weeks as a c/SGT, and therefore spent most of my JROTC time as a c/Officer (1 1/2 years in the enlisted ranks, the rest wearing pips and lozenges). Personally, I worked as though I were a c/NCO, to the point of being chastised multiple times for not utilizing my enlisted assistants properly. I finally transitioned from S6 to S3 for several months, where I was forced to start stepping back and taking on a management type role and allowing those assistants to work some more (mostly for my own sanity, another story for another trip down "amnesia lane"). We did a re-organization of our top 3 c/Officers (BC, XO, S3) right as our junior year ended, and I transitioned to XO where I remained for my senior year. Even in that position, I still found myself working hard as ever (filling a vacated S1 and S2 position for short times each, then training the incumbents), leading the Drill Team & Color Guard, and training those who would replace "the best staff our SAI ever had" (his words).

[armysc_25b]

You had a JAG in your JROTC unit Armysc_25b? What did they do?
To be honest, I don't remember. That was the only year such a position was used in the program, and to be honest I think it was more of a "overflow" position than anything else. Though when it came down to business, the JAG did handle disciplinary measures.

[armysc_25b]

I'm going to expand a little bit more on my thoughts to the following quote, I'm pretty sure I'm running out of available characters on my other post.

The main problem we had, however, was a lack of senior cadets in senior c/NCO ranks. Our c/SGM (again, misuse of the E9 grade as he should've been a c/CSM) was a senior, as well as our S2 (c/SFC), and I think we had one more senior who was a c/SFC. Otherwise, the senior c/NCO's were mostly trusted sophomore's (if they hadn't been promoted to c/2LT due to serving as XO's).

And that's the problem that most JROTC units suffer from. The cadet NCO ranks are not respected and/or sought after because of the "importance" of cadet officers.

My SAI's idea was to allow the LET-2's to start filling XO & 1SG positions. Huge no-go in my opinion. Those should be your senior cadets, ones that have been around the block a time or two, not cadets that have barely been around long enough to get their ears wet. I remember a time in my program where there were defined times in grade to even be considered for promotion, and there were required knowledge tests (test from the corresponding LET-Level books (predates the current curriculum BTW), ability to lead a drill sequence, participation in the program in ways other than class, etc.) and the system was designed to max cadets at certain ranks and positions based on LET-Level, with exceptions TO the rule, not the exceptions BEING the rule.

c/NCO's had an effective system, and senior c/NCO's came out of the junior and senior classes. The cadets that needed to be were promoted into the c/Officer ranks, and the system was effective there also. No knowledge tests or anything like that, but just like the Regular Army the c/Officers were doing 67-8's & 67-8-1's (slightly modified for appropriate use in the cadet program) tracking their accomplishments and what their stated goals would be. The BC & SAI reviewed this, and based on their performance, goals, etc., were promoted in due time.

So to sum up everything I'm trying to say. An effective program needs an effective system to determine things such as promotion. STRICT guidelines need to be enforced about who can be promoted when, and what kind of standards need to be upheld while in said rank. Whether it is the use of a "permanent/temporary" rank system, promotion boards, or knowledge exams, your system needs to be able to identify what you want out of your ranked cadets and ensures that only those suitable move forward.

JROTC is a great program, without it I wouldn't be where I am today. Management of it, however, is the issue. It's an issue that falls on the Corps of Cadets and instructors. Cadets for having flawed views, and instructors for not managing programs what I would consider properly (part of that opinion falls in this series of posts).

[El Supremo]

I'm going to expand a little bit more on my thoughts to the following quote, I'm pretty sure I'm running out of available characters on my other post.



My SAI's idea was to allow the LET-2's to start filling XO & 1SG positions. Huge no-go in my opinion. Those should be your senior cadets, ones that have been around the block a time or two, not cadets that have barely been around long enough to get their ears wet. I remember a time in my program where there were defined times in grade to even be considered for promotion, and there were required knowledge tests (test from the corresponding LET-Level books (predates the current curriculum BTW), ability to lead a drill sequence, participation in the program in ways other than class, etc.) and the system was designed to max cadets at certain ranks and positions based on LET-Level, with exceptions TO the rule, not the exceptions BEING the rule.

c/NCO's had an effective system, and senior c/NCO's came out of the junior and senior classes. The cadets that needed to be were promoted into the c/Officer ranks, and the system was effective there also. No knowledge tests or anything like that, but just like the Regular Army the c/Officers were doing 67-8's & 67-8-1's (slightly modified for appropriate use in the cadet program) tracking their accomplishments and what their stated goals would be. The BC & SAI reviewed this, and based on their performance, goals, etc., were promoted in due time.

So to sum up everything I'm trying to say. An effective program needs an effective system to determine things such as promotion. STRICT guidelines need to be enforced about who can be promoted when, and what kind of standards need to be upheld while in said rank. Whether it is the use of a "permanent/temporary" rank system, promotion boards, or knowledge exams, your system needs to be able to identify what you want out of your ranked cadets and ensures that only those suitable move forward.

JROTC is a great program, without it I wouldn't be where I am today. Management of it, however, is the issue. It's an issue that falls on the Corps of Cadets and instructors. Cadets for having flawed views, and instructors for not managing programs what I would consider properly (part of that opinion falls in this series of posts).

What sounds like the rememdy needs to be, is that the program needs an AI, or SAI who places the emphasis on cadet NCO's and not on the Cadet Officers and Enlisted.

Any LET II could be Battalion XO, and if I could, I would trade positions with the Cadet Command Sergeant Major, or one of the Cadet First Sergeants to lead the way in this example. However, I think that they enjoy being senior cadet NCO's, too much right now, and I doubt our AI or SAI would approve of me doing so.

[armysc_25b]

What sounds like the rememdy needs to be, is that the program needs an AI, or SAI who places the emphasis on cadet NCO's and not on the Cadet Officers and Enlisted.

He has an Officer's mentality, 30 of his 33 years were spent as such. He really does mean well, however with the constant rotation of AI's (he just hired his 4th since 2001) it's hard to have a good leadership team in the instructors. The guy is smart (Ph.D. in Child Development), and brings out the best in all of his cadets (and the school finally recognized it by naming him Teacher of the Year), but looking at it where I am now the one flaw I find is everything I described above.

[Sanguinary]

A good thought, but I do have a question. Should every promo wanna be see a panel? That sounds like a logistical nightmare for a large unit (and by what you are describing, you don't have the smallest unit). A promo board should be in place for rank, certain ones that is. I'd say all officers see a board, and ranks like "E-4" and up. Then you are testing for cadet NCO and cadet officer ranks. Reason for not a board for the others? Simple, their are a lot of them, and most will be new people that those on the board probably haven't had time for proper interaction.

Note: I said a pay grade for cadets because multiple "branches" are being represented, and that's the uniform way of saying it. Using pay grade is not standard practice, but I think the situation permits.

I did forget to mention that only C/CPL - C/MSG goes to promotion board. This is a group where promotions take place the most often. Usually our battalion runs with enlisted being LET 1s and LET 2s and officers being LET 3s and LET 4s. This allows everyone to get to see both sides and how they work while also making sure we have experienced cadets at the helm, so to speak. Our unit has a problem with retaining cadets for their Junior and Senior years. This makes us have a smaller population of cadets within that officer bracket. This makes the need for an officer promotion board go down a lot. Most positions cycle out at semester time so that is where many promotions happen.

As far as logistics go, it is actually fairly easy once it has been established. promotion board was actually started a year before I entered the program. Since then it has been refined and refined to get to where it is today. Most of the paperwork has changed and became adequate for the situation. It is hard for me to tell you how another unit would do it logistics wise. I can tell you though, that once it is in place, it becomes much easier on everyone.

I love talking about promotion boards as it is something I have put a lot of time and effort into. If you have any more questions, let me know.

[TruBlu]

I did forget to mention that only C/CPL - C/MSG goes to promotion board. This is a group where promotions take place the most often. Usually our battalion runs with enlisted being LET 1s and LET 2s and officers being LET 3s and LET 4s. This allows everyone to get to see both sides and how they work while also making sure we have experienced cadets at the helm, so to speak. Our unit has a problem with retaining cadets for their Junior and Senior years. This makes us have a smaller population of cadets within that officer bracket. this makes the need for an officer promotion board go down a lot. Most positions cycle out at semester time so that is where many promotions happen.

I support that, I really do. That's kind of like the system that my unit is establishing, only cadets who wish to attain the highest "enlisted" ranks stick with that track for three or four years, instead of two. The officers will have to have two years of "enlisted" time, then they can advance to officer rank. Those that don't wish to can stick with being "enlisted." And retaining cadets is a huge problem (this comes from a unit with one fourth year), but I still oppose "giving out" rank to keep people, although my instructors, at least one, simply love it.

[Sanguinary]

I support that, I really do. That's kind of like the system that my unit is establishing, only cadets who wish to attain the highest "enlisted" ranks stick with that track for three or four years, instead of two. The officers will have to have two years of "enlisted" time, then they can advance to officer rank. Those that don't wish to can stick with being "enlisted." And retaining cadets is a huge problem (this comes from a unit with one fourth year), but I still oppose "giving out" rank to keep people, although my instructors, at least one, simply love it.

It is a problem. It truly is, but what can we as cadets do about a system that will be off balance either way? In my unit you might be a LET 3 that just got promoted to C/2LT but you won't get positions and you won't get promotions unless you deserve it. This tries to keep people learning without giving them something they do not deserve.