The Instructor Is Not a Cadet

Why Adults Should Not Fill Positions in Cadet Color Guards and Drill Teams

I recently posted a photograph of an Army Junior ROTC color guard. Four positions were occupied by cadets. The fifth was occupied by an Army JROTC instructor, who was marching with the cadets and carrying a flag.

Several people asked what was wrong with that. One response defended the instructor as someone who was “stepping up and leading.” No. That misunderstands both the function of the instructor and the purpose of a cadet formation.

An instructor can teach the movement. He can demonstrate it, rehearse the cadets, correct them, coach them, evaluate them, supervise them, and decide whether they are ready to perform. During instruction, there may certainly be times when an instructor physically steps into a position to demonstrate a technique. I have marched with my trainees consistently over the years. It helps create a strong presence and allows me to evaluate from within the formation.

But when a designated cadet color guard steps forward to perform, the instructor does not become one of the cadets because somebody is absent.

That distinction is not merely aesthetic. It is built into the structure of these youth programs.

A Drill Manual Answers “How,” Not Necessarily “Who”

The original photograph involved Army JROTC, which raised an interesting challenge.

Army JROTC uses Army TC 3-21.5, Drill and Ceremonies. If TC 3-21.5 describes formations made up of Soldiers, how can I say that an Army JROTC instructor cannot simply take a position in a JROTC formation? The answer is that adopting a military drill manual does not import the personnel structure of the military organization that wrote it.

Army JROTC uses TC 3-21.5 because Cadet Command needs a standardized system for teaching and executing Army drill. USACC Regulation 145-2 states:

“Drill will be conducted IAW current Army Training Circular 3-21.5, Drill and Ceremonies…”

It then identifies TC 3-21.5 as “the Army standard” for executing the manual of arms.

That tells Army JROTC how to execute drill. It does not make JROTC cadets Soldiers, and it does not transform their instructors into members of a cadet formation.The personnel relationship comes from JROTC doctrine itself.

Federal law establishes JROTC as a program conducted at secondary schools for students. The same statutory framework separately defines JROTC instructors as instructional leaders. Senior military instructors “oversee the program,” while non-senior military instructors share program responsibilities and are specifically expected to possess expertise in “coaching, mentoring, and practical arts.”

That distinction between the learner and the instructor appears repeatedly when we examine the individual programs.

Army JROTC: The Instructor Coaches; the Cadets Perform

Army Cadet Command gives us some of the clearest language available. USACC Regulation 145-2 tells the instructor:

“You Will Be A Coach Of AJROTC Co-Curricular Activity Team(s)”

The regulation identifies the Color Guard among those teams and states that instructors are involved in “coaching and assisting JROTC teams.” Just before that section, it even recommends that instructors “offer your Cadet Color Guard” for community events.

Those words establish different functions. There is the instructor. There is the cadet color guard. The instructor coaches the team. The instructor is not the team.

The 2026 U.S. Army Cadet Command National Drill Team SOP makes the personnel composition explicit for competition. Armed Color Guard: “4 Cadets.” Unarmed Color Guard: “4 Cadets.” Later, it specifies all four positions: left guard, National Color bearer, organizational Color bearer, and right guard.

The national competition SOP is, of course, a competition document. I am not claiming that its team composition rule independently governs every school-board meeting, football game, parade, or community ceremony in the country. But it provides compelling evidence of how Cadet Command understands an Army JROTC color guard: it is a cadet team.

That is why “the instructor stepped up to lead” is not a defense. The instructor already has a leadership role. His leadership consists of preparing the cadets to perform their roles. Taking one of those roles away from them is not necessary to demonstrate leadership.

Navy JROTC: The Manual Was Specifically Written for Cadets

Navy JROTC makes the distinction even easier to see. The current Naval Service Training Command publications page identifies the NJROTC Cadet Drill Manual as the program’s drill manual. The manual explains that it was developed from Marine Corps drill doctrine but:

“tailored to meet the needs of NJROTC”

More importantly, it says the review was conducted to standardize how drill is performed “for cadets.” The resulting manual is the primary source for NJROTC drill at company and battalion level. There is the same doctrinal mechanism again.

NJROTC borrows military drill doctrine from MCO 5060.20. It adapts that doctrine to a student organization. The Naval Science Instructor teaches and supervises. The cadets constitute the cadet team.

Marine Corps JROTC: Marine Corps Doctrine, Cadet Performers

Marine Corps JROTC approaches the matter somewhat differently because it very deliberately maintains conformity with Marine Corps drill doctrine.

MCJROTC Policy Letter 9-16 directs that its color guards execute in strict compliance with the Marine Corps Drill and Ceremonies Manual. Regulation drill similarly follows the applicable chapters of Marine Corps doctrine. Again, however, use of the parent service’s drill manual does not erase the distinction between instructor and cadet. The same policy letter discusses instructors performing risk assessments before “cadets performing any non-standard movement or routine.”

MCJROTC’s governing material also defines its Color Guard Award as being presented to cadets who distinguish themselves “as members of the unit’s color guard,” while the Senior Marine Instructor determines eligibility. That is the same as NJROTC.

That is the same structural relationship: The instructor administers, instructs, evaluates, and supervises. The cadets perform.

Air Force and Space Force JROTC: Cadet-Led by Design

The Department of the Air Force provides perhaps the clearest explanation of why this distinction matters educationally. Air Force JROTC calls activities such as Color Guard and Drill Team as Leadership Development Requirements, or LDRs. Air University describes these activities this way:

“Instructors supervise and certify the activities, but cadets are responsible for leading, planning, and organizing them.”

Air University’s current information for prospective instructors likewise says instructors “supervise Leadership Development Requirements,” including drill-team activities. That is not accidental wording. Developing cadet leadership is the purpose of the activity.

Space Force JROTC operates within the same Holm Center educational structure. Air University identifies both Air Force and Space Force JROTC programs within that enterprise.

If an instructor sees a vacant position and fills it himself, the immediate problem may disappear, but the educational problem does not. The student organization has just learned that when the cadet leadership system fails to produce enough trained personnel, the adult will perform the mission for them. The exact opposite of what an LDR is intended to accomplish.

Coast Guard JROTC: The Same Student-Instructor Separation

Coast Guard JROTC has expanded significantly and should now be included whenever we discuss the JROTC community as a whole.

The Coast Guard describes its extracurricular opportunities as activities for cadets, specifically including drill team and color guard. Each unit separately has maritime science instructors. The Coast Guard’s description of instructor responsibilities is also revealing. A Senior Maritime Science Instructor instructs cadets, evaluates them, and “organizes, supervises, and participates in extracurricular activities for JROTC cadets to include color guard, drill teams, and other special activities.”

I would exercise some care with the word participates in that job description. It establishes instructor involvement in the activity but does not state that the instructor becomes a marching member of the cadet color guard. The broader organizational language still separates the student participants from the adults who instruct and supervise them.

Civil Air Patrol Requires an Important Qualification

CAP is an organization containing both cadet members and adult senior members. Consequently, I would not make the unsupportable blanket statement that cadets and senior members can never appear together in any CAP formation. But when we are specifically discussing the CAP Cadet Program and its cadet color guards, the division of responsibility is clear.

CAP National Headquarters describes drill as something through which “cadets learn teamwork” and currently identifies CAPP 60-33 and DAFPAM 34-1203 as the key drill-and-ceremonies references. CAP’s Cadet Honor Academy is even more specific: it “prepares cadets to serve on color guards and honor guards.”

Meanwhile, CAP describes its adult Cadet Programs Officers as educators, role models, instructors, supervisors, and mentors. CAP specifically warns that these adults remain authority figures and are not to allow their relationship with cadets to become a peer-to-peer relationship. So the sound rule for CAP is narrower and more accurate:

A senior member should not casually fill a cadet billet in a designated cadet color guard merely because another cadet called in ill.

Correction, 18 September 2026: An earlier version of this article did not fully account for the exception contained in CAPP 60-33. Paragraph 7.1.2 permits CAP cadet officers and senior members to serve on a color guard as an exception when a mission must be accomplished and Phase II cadets are unavailable. The same exception appeared in the 5 August 2016 edition of CAPP 60-33. The section below has been revised accordingly.

U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps: Adults Guide; Cadets Receive the Training

The U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps also deserves careful treatment because its adult volunteers have their own organizational ranks and uniforms. Sea Cadets describes its volunteers as adults who “Lead & Mentor,” teaching skills and guiding cadet development.

Its 2024 training publication describes Ceremonial/Honor Guard as training through which Sea Cadets learn Navy and Marine Corps skills for handling the colors at public events and Sea Cadet ceremonies. The accompanying imagery shows cadets performing those duties. The organization also describes its adult volunteers as people who “guide and inspire our cadets,” while cadets receive the leadership and teamwork experience.

The organizational structure provides the appropriate principle: adult leaders train, guide, supervise, and support the cadets. A Sea Cadet ceremonial team exists to provide the cadets with the opportunity to perform those duties.

Young Marines May Be the Most Explicit of All

Young Marines doctrine leaves little room for misunderstanding.

The Young Marines Basic Guidebook establishes an actual billet titled “Young Marine Color Guard Member.” It explains that a Young Marine selected as a flag bearer becomes part of the unit’s Color Guard. It then creates another youth billet, “Young Marine Color Sergeant,” who is the senior member of the color guard and is responsible for its success. The duties include training and preparing the color guard and:

“Commanding the Color Guard during events”

The organization’s current leadership material separately explains the adult role: “Adult volunteers provide essential support, direction, and accountability, while senior youth members lead, mentor, and inspire their peers.” That might be the cleanest description of the relationship in this entire discussion: Adults provide direction. Young people lead their peers. The program does not develop youth leadership by having the adult take the youth’s position.

Demonstrating Is Not the Same as Performing

None of this means an instructor should stand twenty feet away and never touch a rifle, flagstaff, guidon, or step into a formation. That would be absurd. Good instructors demonstrate.

If I am teaching a color guard and need to show the National bearer exactly where the staff belongs, I may take the staff. If I need four people in formation to demonstrate spacing and only three cadets understand the movement, I can temporarily occupy the fourth position while teaching it. That is instruction.

A rehearsal is not automatically a ceremonial performance. A demonstration for instructional purposes is not the same thing as constituting the team for a public ceremony. The distinction occurs when the instructional organization becomes the performing organization. At that point, billets matter.

“But We Were Short One Person” Then you were short one person. Marching two guards and the national bearer is the bare minimum for a color guard. It’s not usual and you may get odd looks and even some questions, but it is authorized.

Being “short one” is a training and readiness problem. It is not authority for changing the nature of the team. If a color guard requires four qualified cadets and only three are available, the adult leader should solve the problem as an adult leader. Find another trained cadet. Train sufficient alternates before the next event. Use another authorized configuration if the applicable program permits one (see above). Coordinate with another appropriate cadet unit when authorized. Or tell the requesting organization that the unit cannot provide the requested color guard.

What the instructor should not do is conclude, “I am an adult in a military uniform, I know the drill, and there is an empty spot, so I will become Cadet Number Four.” The vacant position does not change his status.

The Manual Is a Template, Not a Membership Card

And we arrive back where we started: the original Army JROTC question.

Why does Army JROTC use TC 3-21.5 if the Soldiers described in the training circular are not literally the people making up a JROTC formation?

Because TC 3-21.5 provides the Army’s system of drill and ceremonies. It supplies the vocabulary, commands, movements, and the mechanics of formations and the manual of arms. Cadet Command then applies that Army system to its cadet program.

Navy JROTC does essentially the same thing when it adapts Marine Corps drill doctrine for NJROTC cadets. Marine Corps JROTC expressly directs cadets to execute Marine Corps drill doctrine. Air Force and Space Force JROTC use Department of the Air Force drill while placing execution within cadet leadership activities. CAP similarly adapts Air Force doctrine for the needs of its Cadet Program. Sea Cadets uses the MCO and naval-service traditions and training to develop Sea Cadets. Young Marines use MCO practices while assigning their ceremonial billets to Young Marines.

Using the parent organization’s manual tells the student organization how to drill. It does not answer who belongs in the student organization. That answer comes from the program itself.

Across these programs, the organizational pattern is remarkably consistent: Adults teach. Adults coach. Adults mentor. Adults supervise. Youth lead and perform in the youth formation.

An adult taking a cadet’s place is not “stepping up and leading.”

In a properly developed program, leadership means preparing the cadets so that the adult does not need to take their place.