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]

Originally Posted by Seminarian_Tim

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]

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.

[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.