What would constitute impersonating an officer?

[mikeylikey]

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

Good luck getting the AF to say we are their auxiliary.  So impersonating a CAP "Senior Member" would most likely not fall into these laws....

[mynetdude]

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

Good luck getting the AF to say we are their auxiliary.  So impersonating a CAP "Senior Member" would most likely not fall into these laws....

* mynetdude sighs, I know there has been discussion about whether CAP is actually an auxillary in one of the threads about moving CAP to DHS or DOT whatever.  AFAIK and it seems to be based on the number of posts and comments we ARE still the Auxiliary otherwise if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

Again, CAP is the Aux when on AFAM (when we work for the USAF) the rest of the time we are just our little nonprofit corporation with only 50,000+ members.

[mynetdude]

Whoa... thats cool I didn't know that doing a / command would do something like that!

[afgeo4]

"False Personation of an Officer of the United States" (18 USC 44) is a felony, but requires specific intent to defraud another.

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

LOL so if we're only the Auxiliary part-time, does it make it okay to impersonate us all other times?

[CASH172]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

[mynetdude]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

Got any info on that? I'm not saying we shouldn't be the Aux, but the point is... if we aren't something then we shouldn't be plastering it all over saying we are when we aren't.

I wonder if we lose our "AUX" status how that affects funding from the USAF and AFAMs, and THEN the impersonation law would not apply to CAP because we would no longer be an AUX because the law only applies to Military, Law Enforcement, and Auxiliary (and some others I am sure) so we would no longer be under the blanket!

[CASH172]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

Got any info on that?

Look at the new paint schemes markings on our aircraft and tell me where it says AF or Aux anywhere on the outside.  Also, look at the new command patch.  Of course I don't know how much further CAP as a whole will go in that direction since our 'regime change.'

[mynetdude]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

[CASH172]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

[mynetdude]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

[CASH172]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

Go to www.cap.gov and look at the picture of the C182.  As for the official memo, I couldn't find it via a google search right away but I'll keep looking.  But a side note, the command patch on the C182 on cap.gov was photoshoped in. 

That's enough of a topic drift. 

[SJFedor]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

They've been removed for some time on most aircraft. The policy letter (which, when you look in the ICL category online, shows it as resinded) required removing USAF Aux from the tail, and replacing the Civil Air Patrol/USAF Aux emblem (the old school WWII era patch w/ USAF Aux written on it) to the US Civil Air Patrol MAJCOM shield. Perhaps your wing wasn't compliant with the policy letter, as I remember it had a "to be done" date of sometime in mid to late 07. But every aircraft in my Wing, every aircraft I've seen in every other wing I've been to, and all the GA-8s I've flown, all have the Civil Air Patrol on the tail, and the MAJCOM shield on the doors. As well, all the new aircraft we're getting from the factory are so painted and marked.

Some wings still haven't gotten their aircraft painted, as, per 66-1, they're not required to be painted in the scheme until they're "in need" of a complete repaint. Then, they're to be painted in the right colors. PA Wing, for example, most (>50%) of their fleet isn't painted in the R/W/B scheme (at least, when I left they weren't) An argument was made that it's better to have an "unmarked" plane, especially for CD ops, but since even the unmarked planes are required to have the under/overwing and tail markings, it's kinda redundant now.

[mynetdude]

again we're drifting off topic, sorry I didn't notice the change in paint scheme... indeed the tails are different now too.

If it is the case that the change didn't need to take place until a plane was in need of repainting... I can see several of ORWG's aircrafts keeping the old lettering/emblems for a VERY long time because many of our planes are not in need of repainting at the moment, I know of at least 2 that probably could use repainting but not where the changes are to be made.

I know our planes are going out on a rotation schedule right now due to squadrons gaining/losing an aircraft in the recent changes.  So I'm wondering if repaints are in the works during this rotational process along with that we just got a new plane so I would imagine it has the newer paint scheme as mentioned above.

But to go back on topic...  I noticed one poster mentioned in another very recent thread and pointed out some regulations concerning when we are the AF Aux just out of curiosity if the AF Aux is being removed from aircraft and other emblems does that mean squadrons who have signs that say XXX Squadron, USAF Auxiliary need to have their sign no longer say USAF Aux? I don't know if regulation points this out or not

Again, regulation is still saying that when we are tasked by federal agencies including the USAF and other military resources we are considered the AF Aux having this removed will probably prompt that regulation to be updated so therefore impersonating an officer in the Auxiliary would have no merit because we are phasing out our "Auxiliary" status???  I don't know if removing the AF Aux name means we are no longer going to maintain "auxiliary" status?

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP is, in fact, the USAF Auxiliary, and it is illegal to wear the uniform of the CAP without authority to do so.

It would require an act of Congress to change that fact, not merely changing a sticker on the side of an airplane.

[afgeo4]

CAP is, in fact, the USAF Auxiliary, and it is illegal to wear the uniform of the CAP without authority to do so.

It would require an act of Congress to change that fact, not merely changing a sticker on the side of an airplane.

Arrrgh Sir... it is a FACT that CAP is the USAF Auxiliary when on AFAM missions. CAP does not and cannot act as the USAF Auxiliary at all other times. Don't forget, the Civil Air Patrol, is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate, not the Dept of the Air Force or even the DoD.  The Auxiliary status is no longer a full-time thing and hasn't been for a while.

Do I like it? No! However, it is the truth and I'm not going to lie to myself or others simply because I don't like it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are incorrect.

CAP's status as an auxiliary when acting on behalf of the federal government is a change to the law that clarifies liability only.  The authority to act in a corporate role is provided by Congress, the Congress has stated that CAP is the auxiliary of the USAF.

Think of it in terms of the Air National Guard... The ANG is a state force, unless and until it is called up by the President to serve on active duty.  But it remains a unit, albeit on standby, of the USAF. 

We do not have a state role, but rather a corporate one.  That role allows us to serve state governments, local governments, and NGO's to carry out our Congressional mandates.  We remain on "Standby" for service to the USAF when called, and such a call, by law takes precedence over any other mission.  The Air Force provides the aircraft and vehicles for these corporate missions, and we may wear the Air Force unifrom when performing them, but the AF has no liability for injuries or negligence on non AF missions, and the current law clarifies that.

For purposes of punishing those who wear the uniform illegally, we remain an auxiliary of the USAF. 

[afgeo4]

You are incorrect.

CAP's status as an auxiliary when acting on behalf of the federal government is a change to the law that clarifies liability only.  The authority to act in a corporate role is provided by Congress, the Congress has stated that CAP is the auxiliary of the USAF.

Think of it in terms of the Air National Guard... The ANG is a state force, unless and until it is called up by the President to serve on active duty.  But it remains a unit, albeit on standby, of the USAF. 

We do not have a state role, but rather a corporate one.  That role allows us to serve state governments, local governments, and NGO's to carry out our Congressional mandates.  We remain on "Standby" for service to the USAF when called, and such a call, by law takes precedence over any other mission.  The Air Force provides the aircraft and vehicles for these corporate missions, and we may wear the Air Force unifrom when performing them, but the AF has no liability for injuries or negligence on non AF missions, and the current law clarifies that.

For purposes of punishing those who wear the uniform illegally, we remain an auxiliary of the USAF. 

I won't entertain an opinion claimed to be a fact without proof. The drift needs to end too.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What drift?  The central question of this thread was "What constitutes Impersonation of an Officer."

[RogueLeader]

It's fine by me thus far.

[Major Lord]

I concur with John Kachenmeister that CAP is the USAF-AUX, by an act of Congress. I challenge anyone to produce a source constituting a superior authority that contradicts this. CAP or Air Force Policy on Bling, flair, patches,  stickers, or AFAMS does not change the irrefutable fact that we are the Aux. Its not just policy. Its the law.

Major Lord