It has taken me a while to research and formulate a statement that calls on cadet program HQs to take a hard look at procedures. During this time, AFJROTC, NJROTC, CAP, and Young Marines were the programs in my view. I am not calling out individuals, I am calling out the institutions, not people.
My concentration is only focused on drill and ceremonies.
Short answer for the above question: No.
A cadet program’s governing authority does not have the authority to replace its parent service’s drill and ceremonies system with another service’s methods, nor to arbitrarily change prescribed positions, commands, or techniques.
This question arises frequently—usually after an instructor or cadet is told, “Leadership says we’re doing it this way now,” or “We’ve adopted another service’s drill because it looks sharper.” These statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of where authority comes from in military drill and ceremonies.
This article explains the distinction clearly and applies to all cadet programs, including JROTC, Civil Air Patrol, Naval Sea Cadets, and similar organizations.
Cadet Programs Do Not Own Drill Doctrine
Cadet programs do not create independent drill and ceremonies doctrine.
They inherit it.
Each cadet program operates under a parent military service or federally recognized authority, and its ceremonial standards flow from that relationship—not from program leadership acting independently.
Examples include:
- Army-aligned cadet programs → Army doctrine
- Air Force-aligned cadet programs (e.g., CAP) → Air Force doctrine
- Navy-aligned cadet programs (e.g., Sea Cadets) → Navy doctrine
- Marine-aligned cadet programs → Marine Corps doctrine
Program-level leadership functions as administrative governance, not as a doctrinal authority.
What a Cadet Program’s Governing Authority Can Do
Program-level administrative leadership may:
- Clarify ambiguous doctrinal language
- Adapt training for safety, liability, or age appropriateness
- Restrict certain techniques for cadet use
- Establish internal evaluation, inspection, or competition standards
- Publish instructional guidance derived from parent-service doctrine
These actions affect implementation, not truth.
They govern how doctrine is taught—not what is doctrinally correct.
What a Cadet Program’s Governing Authority Cannot Do
Absent explicit delegation from the parent service, a cadet program’s governing authority cannot:
- Replace its parent service’s drill system with another service’s system
- Redefine positions such as Attention, Parade Rest, Present Arms, or Order Arms
- Substitute another service’s manual of arms or marching techniques as the standard
- Declare non-doctrinal or hybrid techniques “correct”
- Override parent-service regulations through policy or guidance
Administrative authority does not convert preference into doctrine.
Influence Is Not Authority
Cadet programs often admire the precision, bearing, or stylistic qualities of other services. This is natural—and educational discussion of those differences is appropriate.
However:
- Influence does not equal authorization
- Admiration does not override doctrine
- “Sharper” does not mean “correct”
Teaching cadets about other services’ practices is education.
Teaching those practices as the standard without authorization is doctrinally improper.
Derived Publications vs. Independent Doctrine
Many cadet programs publish adapted drill guidance derived from parent-service manuals. This is both common and appropriate.
However:
Derived guidance does not constitute independent doctrinal authority.
Adaptation, clarification, and restriction are permissible. Substitution is not.
If a technique or position cannot be traced back to parent-service doctrine—or to an explicitly delegated exception—it is not doctrinally legitimate.
The Exhibition Drill Misconception
Exhibition drill is frequently cited as justification for cross-service mixing. This is incorrect.
While exhibition drill allows creative movement and presentation:
- It does not rewrite regulation drill standards
- It does not authorize doctrinal blending
- It does not retroactively legitimize improper instruction
Exhibition drill exists alongside regulation doctrine—not above it.
Why This Distinction Matters
When administrative authority is mistaken for doctrinal authority:
- Cadets receive conflicting instruction
- Instructors argue over policy instead of reference
- Evaluations become subjective rather than standardized
- Incorrect practices spread and become normalized
- Program credibility erodes over time
This is how error becomes tradition.
A Simple Test for Instructors and Leaders
When confronted with a claimed change, ask:
- Is this a restriction, clarification, or substitution?
- If it is a substitution, what parent-service doctrine authorizes it?
- If no doctrine exists, why is it being taught as standard?
If the answer relies solely on administrative position, the guidance is not doctrinally valid.
The Governing Principle
Administrative authority manages programs.
Doctrinal authority defines correctness.
Confusing the two produces error.
Cadet programs succeed when this boundary is respected.
This article addresses doctrinal authority and administrative governance in cadet programs generally. It does not supersede parent-service regulations, formally delegated exceptions, or lawful command authority. Program-specific publications may adapt or restrict drill and ceremonies procedures for cadet use, but such adaptations do not constitute independent doctrine unless explicitly authorized by the parent military service.