At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) :-\ has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?
Although there may be a few guardhouse lawyer types out there that may disagree, she paid her fees, submitted an application, and the check was no-doubt cashed by our broke organization. There is no background checks for cadets, so she is a member from the time her application is submitted and dues are paid. She is not eligible to run missions yet, but unless your parade was an AFAM, I say good on her for jumping in with both well-polished boots and "most of her uniform" although I am reluctant to ask what part(s) she was missing when she marched in the parade! FYI, most of the same rules apply to male cadets......Just out of curiosity, did you mean to suggest that the sisters applied simultaneously but only one was processed? I would not lose any sleep over that, as far as any CAP paper-pushing, "Your mileage may vary". I remember how pleasantly surprised I was to see my Chuck Y. Aerospace award a couple of years after I took the test! ( In those dark days, it was a paper test, and passing it without benefit of an open book meant a big gold star on a certificate that I also did not see for a couple of years...)
Major Lord
No CAPID, no marchee.
NO! Liability issues.
Was she safety current? No. then NO participation in any activity other than a safety meeting.
john, the safety nazi ::)
Quote from: Major Lord on November 12, 2011, 09:24:40 PM
There is no background checks for cadets, so she is a member from the time her application is submitted and dues are paid.
Totally agree. We have an aggressive new member training program that regularly ends up with the official date the cadet joined CAP also being his/her DOR for promotion to C/Amn.
Quote from: Short Field on November 12, 2011, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on November 12, 2011, 09:24:40 PM
There is no background checks for cadets, so she is a member from the time her application is submitted and dues are paid.
Totally agree. We have an aggressive new member training program that regularly ends up with the official date the cadet joined CAP also being his/her DOR for promotion to C/Amn.
How can a person pass a controlled test without being a member?
@Major Lord.
I'm sorry for being one of those Guard House Lawyers...But the Membership is not valid until after the application has been processed by NHQ and the member appears on the membership role.
From CAPR 39-2 Section 1-3
QuoteInitial membership commences on the date the membership application is processed by National Headquarters and the individual's name appears on the official membership database.
Yes, according to regs the cadet should not have marched in the parade. However, here we have a situation where an at least 12 y.o. girl in a CAP uniform is not allowed to participate in an activity that a 3 year old in a sequined body suit and twirling a baton can. Ironic ain't it. :o
So, it would be okay for me to march with the local National Guard unit if I went out and bought a uniform even though I wasn't a member yet? Unfortunate that this young (soon to be) cadet is being taught that regulations don't matter right from the beginning of her CAP career.
Didn't say that did I. In fact, she should not have been allowed to march at all. If she is going to be in CAP for very long, she needs to learn how to deal with chicken---- ASAP and this would have been a perfect opportunity.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 13, 2011, 02:40:03 AM
Yes, according to regs the cadet should not have marched in the parade. However, here we have a situation where an at least 12 y.o. girl in a CAP uniform is not allowed to participate in an activity that a 3 year old in a sequined body suit and twirling a baton can. Ironic ain't it. :o
What does one have to do with the other?
You're either a member or you aren't. If you aren't, you don't get to play and you don't wear the uniform.
So the Great Start program is a load of BS? It has a five week schedule that results in the cadets promoting. Week one is the initial open house with the parents. They are training in week two. According to you, they need to stand on the sidelines until their memberships have processed.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 12:00:19 AM
How can a person pass a controlled test without being a member?
By scoring 80%.
When our membership board approves their membership application, we treat them like regular members. The appplications are normally mailed to National the following day. This is different than how we treat potential senior member.
What problems have we had doing this? None. What is the worse thing that can happen? The cadet stops coming and the following week National approves his membership. The Chapter One Leadership test gets compromised? It is an open book test.
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 06:14:33 AM
What is the worse thing that can happen? The cadet stops coming and the following week National approves his membership. The Chapter One Leadership test gets compromised? It is an open book test.
The "almost cadet" dies during a meeting. The parents read the regulations and realize the kid should not have been allowed to "play". They sue CAP for LOTS of money, and you personally for willful negligence.
The "almost cadet" assaults a member...
The "almost cadet" sexually harasses a member of the opposite sex...
The list is endless....
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 06:05:49 AM
So the Great Start program is a load of BS? It has a five week schedule that results in the cadets promoting. Week one is the initial open house with the parents. They are training in week two. According to you, they need to stand on the sidelines until their memberships have processed.
This is the best point in the thread. PCR has said that cadets can not even drill until they are on the roster. Stupid lawyers in my opinion (sorry Ned). They shouldn't be wearing the uniform, yet, though. I also think that signing the membership application is their waiver and at that point they should be covered under the insurance. IN FACT, I think that any prospective cadet attending any meeting should be covered under the insurance and probably is.
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 06:05:49 AMAccording to you, they need to stand on the sidelines until their memberships have processed.
That's according to the
regs. Just because Great Start conflicts with the regs doesn't change things.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 12:02:22 AM
@Major Lord.
I'm sorry for being one of those Guard House Lawyers...But the Membership is not valid until after the application has been processed by NHQ and the member appears on the membership role.
From CAPR 39-2 Section 1-3
QuoteInitial membership commences on the date the membership application is processed by National Headquarters and the individual's name appears on the official membership database.
Hmm, in this world of computerization, one would think that a unit upon receipt of the application & payment could enter the information to the CAP computer system & get a temporary ID card & CAP ID number for the cadet on the same day the application was received by the unit and properly completed. The application could than be scanned or snail mailed down to National HQ ??? ???
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 13, 2011, 02:38:25 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 12:02:22 AM
@Major Lord.
I'm sorry for being one of those Guard House Lawyers...But the Membership is not valid until after the application has been processed by NHQ and the member appears on the membership role.
From CAPR 39-2 Section 1-3
QuoteInitial membership commences on the date the membership application is processed by National Headquarters and the individual's name appears on the official membership database.
Hmm, in this world of computerization, one would think that a unit upon receipt of the application & payment could enter the information to the CAP computer system & get a temporary ID card & CAP ID number for the cadet on the same day the application was received by the unit and properly completed. The application could than be scanned or snail mailed down to National HQ ??? ???
RM
But what if the Check they wrote you bounces or is written from a closed account? How do you verify that at the unit level? It won't be processed until the payment clears at NHQ.
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 13, 2011, 07:04:32 AM
This is the best point in the thread. PCR has said that cadets can not even drill until they are on the roster. Stupid lawyers in my opinion (sorry Ned). They shouldn't be wearing the uniform, yet, though. I also think that signing the membership application is their waiver and at that point they should be covered under the insurance. IN FACT, I think that any prospective cadet attending any meeting should be covered under the insurance and probably is.
Well that's part of the problem
CAPR 900-5 THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM states that Civil Air Patrol Insurance benefits are for the Civil Air Patrol organization and the Members thereof. There are no benefits categories for potential member or applicants and CAPR 39-2 clearly states that the membership is not effective until after the Application processed by NHQ and the member appears on the Official membership Database.
Any allowance of a potential CAP member to participate under the auspices that they would be covered by CAP insurance is just not accurate and a violation of CAPR 35-10 where all CAP members will act in a fiduciary capacity toward the organization and its members.
I think you're talking about two different things --- CAP insurance that covers members hurt while participating in CAP and insurance that CAP has to cover non-members who might get hurt while at CAP activities. If the CAP building collapses and injures a non-member attending their first meeting, they probably could sue CAP and CAP's insurance would cover them. But, it would be an entirely different process than CAP members involved in the same incident would have to go through.
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 06:14:33 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 12:00:19 AM
How can a person pass a controlled test without being a member?
By scoring 80%.
When our membership board approves their membership application, we treat them like regular members. The appplications are normally mailed to National the following day. This is different than how we treat potential senior member.
What problems have we had doing this? None. What is the worse thing that can happen? The cadet stops coming and the following week National approves his membership. The Chapter One Leadership test gets compromised? It is an open book test.
You missed the point. By allowing a non member to see a test you have violated test control procedures. That's a pretty big deal. Weather it's open book or not is irrelevant because it's not your call to make.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
But what if the Check they wrote you bounces or is written from a closed account? How do you verify that at the unit level? It won't be processed until the payment clears at NHQ.
Can't cadet apps be paid for by credit card?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
But what if the Check they wrote you bounces or is written from a closed account? How do you verify that at the unit level? It won't be processed until the payment clears at NHQ.
Can't cadet apps be paid for by credit card?
I don't think any initial apps can be. I've never seen a place for the info.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 04:47:19 PM
By allowing a non member to see a test you have violated test control procedures. That's a pretty big deal. Weather it's open book or not is irrelevant because it's not your call to make.
It is always best to read a regulation before accusing someone of violating it.
QuoteCAPR 50-4, para 2-4
a. Closed-Book Tests.
(1) Ensure the examinee is listed in eServices or has a current ID card. Note control numbers on test booklets furnished examinees and ensure all tests are returned at the end of the test session. New cadets awaiting NHQ to process their membership application may attempt Achievement 1 tests as soon as the commander endorses their CAP Form 15, Application for Cadet Membership.
b. Open-Book Tests. Will be administered according to the instructions displayed by the software or as specified in the hard copy of the test booklet.
Note the wording "New cadets awaiting NHQ to process their membership application". It does not say "potential new members". They are "new cadets". I treat my new cadets just like my old cadets.
Please refer me to a Court Docket number for any case involving CAP's liability as it pertains to a Cadet participating in a Cadet activity. Also, have we established that this was in fact, a CAP activity within the legal and regulatory definition? Did you drive the (erstwhile) Cadet to the parade? Was this an AFAM parade? Can you point me to any case in which CAP has been civilly liable for the actions of any of its members? Has anyone put an eye out laying a wreathe on a grave? Grow a set people! If we let the lawyer-ball types drive the train, the terrorists win!
And by the way, half the time this group sounds like an edition of "Queer eye for the straight guy" with its incessant discussion of uniform fashion statements. Do we still have a worthwhile Mission or are we just a bunch of wannabees basking in the (largely fictional) accounts of WWII CAP's glories? We are an organization in decay, and all you worry about is the technicalities of flag seams? We've got bigger problems.
Major Lord
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 05:28:59 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 04:47:19 PM
By allowing a non member to see a test you have violated test control procedures. That's a pretty big deal. Weather it's open book or not is irrelevant because it's not your call to make.
It is always best to read a regulation before accusing someone of violating it.
QuoteCAPR 50-4, para 2-4
a. Closed-Book Tests.
(1) Ensure the examinee is listed in eServices or has a current ID card. Note control numbers on test booklets furnished examinees and ensure all tests are returned at the end of the test session. New cadets awaiting NHQ to process their membership application may attempt Achievement 1 tests as soon as the commander endorses their CAP Form 15, Application for Cadet Membership.
b. Open-Book Tests. Will be administered according to the instructions displayed by the software or as specified in the hard copy of the test booklet.
Ok. You are right.
;) - just between us, if you hadn't brought up the point, I wouldn't have read the reg...
Quote from: Short Field on November 13, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
;) - just between us, if you hadn't brought up the point, I wouldn't have read the reg...
Testing's not my department so I haven't read it in a long time... ;)
Quote from: Major Lord on November 13, 2011, 05:31:29 PM
We are an organization in decay, and all you worry about is the technicalities of flag seams? We've got bigger problems.
I agree but what do you propose we little people do?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
But what if the Check they wrote you bounces or is written from a closed account? How do you verify that at the unit level? It won't be processed until the payment clears at NHQ.
Can't cadet apps be paid for by credit card?
Yes, Actually both cadets and Seniors can pay using a credit card. That Credit Card is still processed at NHQ not at the unit level. Credit cards still have issues like checks however like accounts being closed or over allowable credit limits.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 06:01:02 PMCredit cards still have issues like checks however like accounts being closed or over allowable credit limits.
Neither an issue when processed immediately.
And if the check bounces, or the card doesn't clear, then they really aren't a member and that brings us back to "DOH!".
It'd be nice to be able to enter the credit card info into eservices and clear it immediately. Can't the computers clear an echeck over the Internet, too?
To be clear, it's my understanding that PCR is still under orders that perspective cadets are not allowed to drill. It'd be really nice if that were lifted.
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 13, 2011, 08:05:02 PM
It'd be nice to be able to enter the credit card info into eservices and clear it immediately. Can't the computers clear an echeck over the Internet, too?
To be clear, it's my understanding that PCR is still under orders that perspective cadets are not allowed to drill. It'd be really nice if that were lifted.
They can if you are set up for it. This is not an NHQ issue, but a banking industry issue. It is taking far too long
to get people in line with electronic payments. 5 years from now can't fome fast enough.
Death to paper! The King Is Dead! Long Live the King!
All of those payment options would completely speed up the process. I'm not completely sure how NHQ processes payments but I know that there is more to processing an application than just the Data entry and making sure they receive the payment. Years ago we had a young kid try to join our unit as a cadet but it turns out he had been 2B'd by another squadron in another wing. He was a military dependent and figured rejoining CAP after his Parent PCS'd would allow him a fresh start and make new friends in the new town. NHQ sent us a letter and to him telling him that his membership was being refused. We never even saw the kid again...we don't know why he was 2b'd that wasn't shared with us. There was no appeals process to this at the time.
Just makes me think that there is more to the process than just cashing the check.
I am glad that at least years ago, someone thought to look up 2b'd Cadets in the PNG file. I wonder if 2b'ing cadets was more common back in the old days? Its pretty rare these days. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, they also had the non-renew capability, no longer a viable option. I have never had to 2b a Cadet, although a few resigned under circumstances where that could have easily been a remedy (drugs, assault with a deadly weapon, etc) Considering some of the rather dramatic failures of the so-called "background check" conducted for Seniors, I think the example of the 2b'd cadet ( if it happened in the current century) would be more of a failure of the membership committee to act with consideration. I wonder if anyone in that Sq may have said effectively " Well, we know you have been 2b'd in the past, but lest just send in your money and see what happens?", Most of us have seen Sq Commanders give the Okey -dokey on a "Form 31" for a cadet to attend an activity that they know the cadet is not qualified for. ( In one memorable case, a Sq commander signed off on a Cadet 2-weeks post suicide attempt to attend a BCS....one of the higher stress variety, not the new soft and gentle type. THAT should not happen.
Major Lord
It's not particularly difficult to link those databases so that entry in eServices and payment entry would crosscheck with 2B history and raise a red flag. If a cadet is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, then they should definitely be 2B'd regardless of their desire to resign so that they show up in said database.
Quote from: Major Lord on November 13, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
Considering some of the rather dramatic failures of the so-called "background check" conducted for Seniors, I think the example of the 2b'd cadet ( if it happened in the current century) would be more of a failure of the membership committee to act with consideration. I wonder if anyone in that Sq may have said effectively " Well, we know you have been 2b'd in the past, but lest just send in your money and see what happens?",
Um, what Membership Committee? And even if we had a membership committee how could they prevent someone from lying on their application?
Each commander, at their prerogative, may set up a membership committee to determine if new members should be allowed to join and if current members should be allowed to continue. To your second question, I don't have an answer.
I think the question "um, what membership committee?" pretty much says it all.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on November 13, 2011, 11:40:27 PM
I think the question "um, what membership committee?" pretty much says it all.
Major Lord
The Question was pointed because many units have no membership Committee because they are not Required to have one. Our Prospective members meet with the Commander and if they want to join they are invited to come back to the next meeting at that point we will give them an application. No Committee necessary because we don't have any restrictive membership criteria other than those found in CAP Regulations...all determined in the meeting with the Commander.
Why do you have a Membership Committee? What do they do for you? We just see it as unnecessary Bureaucracy in something that is really not that complicated.
Not all recruits are created equal, especially members requesting a transfer. All units should have a membership committee.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 01:35:20 AM
Not all recruits are created equal, especially members requesting a transfer. All units should have a membership committee.
I agree, but I still don't know what the Committee is supposed to do. How do they help you? Membership Criteria is clearly written out, unless you guys add subjective material to prospective members.
The membership committee can simply ask the prospective member or transfer some simple, direct questions about their
understanding of CAP, expectations of the unit, and why they want to join. In most cases it will set the tone of seriousness
and "not-a-giveness" of membership, but a few times a year, someone's spidersense may tingle and it can be decided this particular person
is not a fir, whether for just the unit or CA as a whole.
Membership criteria always includes the acceptance of the respective commander.
I've been involved in far too many cases involving both new people and transfers where the commander didn't even consider the
idea of not accepting them, even though they "had a bad feeling".
If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership. I not sure about a guideline or regulation for that, but it sounds like a much more likely source of law suits than someone drilling with CAP in a uniform having already signed their membership agreement. In my past life as an engineer, I had to attend an all day training before I could interview people to come to work for the company. The list of questions you can't ask or areas you can't discuss is quite long, to say the least.
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 14, 2011, 05:17:03 AM
If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership.
"Because we don't feel you would be a good fit for the organization."
I have this feeling I'd rather be the defendant in the "your kid marched in the parade even though he wasn't on the roster and stubbed his toe" court case than the "your kid can't be a cadet because he wouldn't be a good fit for the organization" court case.
"Well why wouldn't he be a good cadet?"
"Isn't the purpose of the cadet program to instill values and grow youth into the leaders of the future?"
"Are you sure you didn't make that decision because of X reason?" (gender, age, family status, other protected class?)
"Why would you not allow Johnny to be a member when Jordan is a member? Jordan has more of Y problem than Johnny?"
Eek gads. Nightmare.
There are many reasons why prospective members should be interviewed.
Make sure the kids with long hair and piercings know what's expected before they sign on the dotted line. That crusty old dude that's joining to "straighten out the cadets" also comes to mind.
I can't imagine accepting a member without an interview by the membership committee. Why place the burden on the commander? Consistent application of the process will cover your butt if someone attempts to file a complaint. Just don't run afoul of the EO requirements.
As to the OP, it's simple: the person is either a member or not a member. No gray area there.
"I'm sorry Mr. Bagodoughnuts, but unfortunately we do not have an open position which matches your qualifications."
+1 on the last 3 comments.
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 14, 2011, 05:17:03 AM
If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership.
CAP is an "at will" organization - just like employment in most states these days. The only justification it needs to terminate or refuse a
membership is the will to do so. The only time someone would have any standing to sue CAP in this regard is if he could prove his
membership was denied on the basis of being in a protected class.
One of the sacred responsibilities of CAP Commanders is to filter people who should not be members. Anyone unwilling or unable to
make those distinctions should not be wearing the CC badge.
Quote from: pilot97 on November 12, 2011, 08:34:54 PM
At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) :-\ has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?
I joined CAP in February 1987. I submitted my application, got issued blues, completed the 8 week T-Flight and was promoted to C/Amn. I applied for and was accepted to encampment in August 1987. I showed up with a note from my squadron commander that said
"Cadet Stonewall is a member of CAP, however he has yet to get a CAP ID card. We're checking on it". Somehow my CAPF 15 got lost and I didn't show up on the MML until after encampment.
So yeah, I attended encampment before I was officially a CAP member. I'm pretty sure I flew an O-flight too. But [darn] it, don't let that cadet march in the Veterans Day parade >:D
Sweet mother of Buddha, another set of paranoid delusions of civil liability? Okay, write this down, you will see this information again: Membership in CAP is a privilege not a "right". There are only a few "protected classes" that apply to CAP, largely as a result of our strictly voluntary adherence to certain government practices. We don't even deny membership to people who belong to organizations that have advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, so trust me, if you have a bad member, its probably because you did not have a membership committee, or at least one capable of doing its job.
Why have a membership committee? In the case of Cadets, you need to determine if a child can ( as discussed above) voluntarily meet the Uniform and Grooming standards, determine if a child is mature enough to handle membership, and make sure that the child is performing well enough in school that the extra burden of CAP membership won't add to his or her education collapsing. ( Among other things)
For potential Senior Members, a membership committee can help pre-screen potential members applying for bad, incomplete, or even evil reasons. The standards of membership committees are in no way completely objective; if we just needed an objective standard, we could turn it over to the background people to go through the check-off procedures. A membership committee can and should use subjective criteria in screening potential members. Would they be a good fit? Do they strike you as being social misfits? Child molesters? Walter Mitties? Amway salesmen? God gave ( most of ) us intuition, reason, curiosity, skepticism, and a desire to protect our Cadets and Seniors. Its perfectly legitimate to use these tools to screen out potential dangers to our people and organization. A member of the committee should start his assessment early in the process. For instance, it will be a lot less awkward for a member of the M.C. to ask a walk-in for identification at the first meeting. Refusing or failing to show I.D. is an a priori reason to bounce their butts into the street.
Can a membership committee make an error? Sure. For instance, when a group of people at a high level in CAP's past decided that race, gender, sexual orientation, political connections, past service, etc. could tip the scales of preponderance towards justifiably questionable members, they erred on side of political correctness, with disastrous consequences, and collateral damage was caused to many of our organizations' good and faithful servants. This is why a commander needs to be prudent in whom he selects for a membership committee. All of us as individuals have biases, but a well rounded membership committee can have a group dynamic that prevents a squadron from becoming solely a flying club, cult of personality, coven of satanic pederasts, or just a club for one extended family of homes-schoolers.
In our squadron, we ignored our reluctance to prevent a man's entrance into our squadron even though 99% of the M.C. had a "bad feeling" about the applicant. His son was a Cadet, and this argument tipped the balance in favor of endorsement of his membership. As it turned out, the member was an "Industrial Psychopath", and it caused us all literally years of grief; even after we successfully 2B'd him.
Lessons learned? You may hurt someones feelings and lose a potentially valuable member by erring on the side of caution, but you may lose much more for failing to go with your reason and intuition in screening out potential members. Also, remember that nothing prevents an applicant who has been denied entry in one squadron from applying at another. ( Although we probably should create a "blacklist" to prevent the nastiest of infiltrators) And someone we see as a miscreant may fit in very well in another squadron.
Major Lord
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 02:43:52 PM
CAP is an "at will" organization - just like employment in most states these days. The only justification it needs to terminate or refuse a
membership is the will to do so. The only time someone would have any standing to sue CAP in this regard is if he could prove his
membership was denied on the basis of being in a protected class.
One of the sacred responsibilities of CAP Commanders is to filter people who should not be members. Anyone unwilling or unable to
make those distinctions should not be wearing the CC badge.
I can see where a membership committee might be of benefit to a commander but ultimately the Commander is still responsible to ensure membership suitability regardless of a recommendation by a membership Committee.
The Membership reg CAPR 39-2 states the criteria that can be used to reject membership nothing in there says we can reject membership on "the Will to Do so". If you find specific unfavorable information in an interview document it and reject the member. Not just because you feel they just would not be a good fit. Anybody can sue for any reason whatsoever even if it's really frivolous not just because they feel they have been denied by being in a protected class. As far as Burden of Proof in an EEO complaint the burden is on the organization to demonstrate why they denied the membership not the other way around. Make sure your documentation is specific to why you denied membership not just because something vague like membership is a privilege so we denied it to this person because there is something we just don't like about this individual. You would just be feeding the sense of distrust that accompanies EEO Complaints.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 04:58:39 PMThe Membership reg CAPR 39-2 states the criteria that can be used to reject membership nothing in there says we can reject membership on "the Will to Do so".
All membership in CAP is at the pleasure of the respective commander accepting the member, whether a new guy or a transfer. Commanders have the subjective right to refuse membership of anyone they see fit, with the caveat they may not discriminate based on a protected class.
The above presupposes that the commander has some experience and common sense in how to handle these matters discreetly and the trust and support of their Wing commander in the decisions they make.
I've also found that the simple act of asking direct questions and requiring substantiation of the answers is enough to make people self-select out, thus the value of the membership committee in asking things about their purported previous military service, other volunteer affiliations, etc. We potentially trust our members with hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, as well as the safety of other members, especially cadets, and we can't just let people wander in because they felt like it. That mentality is one of the reasons we are where we are.
I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the commander, and if they are incapable of handling things like this in a manner which protects all involved, they should not be in that job.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 14, 2011, 04:10:14 PM
Quote from: pilot97 on November 12, 2011, 08:34:54 PM
At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) :-\ has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?
I joined CAP in February 1987. I submitted my application, got issued blues, completed the 8 week T-Flight and was promoted to C/Amn. I applied for and was accepted to encampment in August 1987. I showed up with a note from my squadron commander that said "Cadet Stonewall is a member of CAP, however he has yet to get a CAP ID card. We're checking on it". Somehow my CAPF 15 got lost and I didn't show up on the MML until after encampment.
So yeah, I attended encampment before I was officially a CAP member. I'm pretty sure I flew an O-flight too. But [darn] it, don't let that cadet march in the Veterans Day parade >:D
Stonewall,
You were just a bad egg and fecally disruptive individual from day-one, weren't you! I think you should have to repeat encampment to justify your grade! (If you really are a member!) ::)
Major Lord
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 05:28:12 PM
All membership in CAP is at the pleasure of the respective commander accepting the member, whether a new guy or a transfer. Commanders have the subjective right to refuse membership of anyone they see fit, with the caveat they may not discriminate based on a protected class.
The above presupposes that the commander has some experience and common sense in how to handle these matters discreetly and the trust and support of their Wing commander in the decisions they make.
I've also found that the simple act of asking direct questions and requiring substantiation of the answers is enough to make people self-select out, thus the value of the membership committee in asking things about their purported previous military service, other volunteer affiliations, etc. We potentially trust our members with hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, as well as the safety of other members, especially cadets, and we can't just let people wander in because they felt like it. That mentality is one of the reasons we are where we are.
I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the commander, and if they are incapable of handling things like this in a manner which protects all involved, they should not be in that job.
I agree to an extent. I just think the Justification for denying membership needs to be a little more specific than having the subjective right to refuse membership to anyone. Because Everyone is a member of a protected Class...Everyone has a race, gender, etc... it's better to have something a little more in line with the regulations to act as a tool to protect you than a subjective spidey sense justification. Major Lord points to a case where they had 2B'd a member he identifies as an "industrial Sociopath" as the example for why a membership Committee should properly investigate a potential member. I think if an interview results in "unfavorable information" just document it and refuse. If that information is not discovered on application you kind of own it and can start a termination procedure at any point you can justify it.
Remember the same "troublemakers" that you find are not suitable for membership are the same people that appeal termination and rejection decisions even to the point of lawsuits even if you justify your decision. Google Aric W. Hall v. Civil Air Patrol inc. if you want to see some outlandish stuff. Better to document especially if you are justified...even a bad attorney can find and read our regulations and make a case if you don't document.
Quote from: CAPR 39-2 sec 3.2 d.
Suitability. Subject to being waived by the Executive Director and/or National
Commander, as noted below, any one of the following may be the basis for rejection of membership.
(1) Conviction of a felony by any court of record whether federal, state or military.
(Requires both Executive Director and National Commander concurrence to accept as member.)
(2) A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child
abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence.
(3) Discharge from the armed services under other than honorable conditions.
(4) Falsification of information on the membership application.
(5) Previously terminated or non renewed for cause from membership in CAP. (Requires
both Executive Director and National Commander concurrence to accept as member.)
(6) Any other unfavorable information brought to the attention of CAP officials at any level.
"Upon completion of an interview, the unit membership board felt that the applicant did not posses the character, interpersonal skills, and attitude that we want to see in this squadron."
I'm going to be a little bit more blunt than usual here - it's way easier to deny a schmuck's application from the get-go than it is to get rid of him later. Aside from the schmucks, some people just aren't a fit for the unit - they can always pursue another unit. My squadron denied an application earlier this year because his personality just wasn't a good fit - he went to another nearby squadron (whose CDC is on this board) and as far as I'm aware he's doing fine in the different environment.
^ I think we're on the same page here, though #6 above is likely to be enough to cover the random "others". I agree anyone with common sense
is going to document their concerns and will be able to use something more than "my spidey sense was tingling" when Creepy McWeirdington wanders into
the unit and starts talking about how he wants to bring the Lord to our cadets (BTDT).
Spaceman3750's got it right, and also to the comment about a member not being a fit for a particular unit - again why membership committees are so important. Some units are so desperate for raw numbers, they never find out why someone joined until after they are already on the road to quitting.
To the one comment - as a middle-aged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male with no physical or mental impairments - I'm not in any protected class that I know of.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 13, 2011, 02:51:23 AM
So, it would be okay for me to march with the local National Guard unit if I went out and bought a uniform even though I wasn't a member yet?
Apropos of absolutely nothing, in the Reno Veteran's Day parade some of the kids of NG members marched in the parade, in uniform, including a toddler who would make about 10 feet then fall down (leading to suggestions that he was officer material).
Quote from: Buzz on November 14, 2011, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 13, 2011, 02:51:23 AM
So, it would be okay for me to march with the local National Guard unit if I went out and bought a uniform even though I wasn't a member yet?
Apropos of absolutely nothing, in the Reno Veteran's Day parade some of the kids of NG members marched in the parade, in uniform, including a toddler who would make about 10 feet then fall down (leading to suggestions that he was officer material).
Actually, I disagree - because no one would mistake a 10-year old or a toddler for a guardsman, but they certainly could mistake a 12 year old in uniform
for an actual cadet, or an adult as an actual senior member, and as we are constantly "reminded", a senior member for someone in the USAF.
Context is everything.
Having once been named in an EO complaint from a member of a protected class (that was a fun call to receive from NHQ), my advice is to do your job correctly and consistently. If you can demonstrate that you hold everyone to the same standard, you should be fine. Pick and choose folks to apply a different standard to, and you could have some problems.
BTW, the complaint was not sustained. The EO compliance officer determined that while the person in question was a member of a protected class (as defined in the regulations), they were not exempt from meeting the same standard as any other member. So it works both ways.
It sure as heck hurts while its happening though, doesn't it? The "seriousness of the accusation" often eclipses the lack of a basis for a complaint, and you wear that specter of being racist, islamophobic, homophobic, or what have you ,even if cleared. Ask Herman Cain what its like to have a full scale attack of unverifiable charges brought, and being splattered with the blood of thought-crime. When you accuse someone of being a racist, etc, you murder his reputation, so you had better be prepared to draw swords and take on all comers if/when the accusations come. Glad it went your way EMT-83!
Major Lord
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 14, 2011, 11:14:11 AM
I have this feeling I'd rather be the defendant in the "your kid marched in the parade even though he wasn't on the roster and stubbed his toe" court case than the "your kid can't be a cadet because he wouldn't be a good fit for the organization" court case.
"Well why wouldn't he be a good cadet?"
"Isn't the purpose of the cadet program to instill values and grow youth into the leaders of the future?"
"Are you sure you didn't make that decision because of X reason?" (gender, age, family status, other protected class?)
"Why would you not allow Johnny to be a member when Jordan is a member? Jordan has more of Y problem than Johnny?"
Eek gads. Nightmare.
The point is......Case A. The complaintant...has a legal status....a person injured on CAP time with out CAP paying for the medical bills.
Case B is joe blow demanding that he join our organsiations......if he can't proove that it is discrimination based on one of the protected classess......he has no legal basis for his suit.
The commander can simply say "I don't like hime" and that is it.
The rules are quoted above. You can't deny someone membership just because you don't like them.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 14, 2011, 04:10:14 PM
Quote from: pilot97 on November 12, 2011, 08:34:54 PM
At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) :-\ has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?
I joined CAP in February 1987. I submitted my application, got issued blues, completed the 8 week T-Flight and was promoted to C/Amn. I applied for and was accepted to encampment in August 1987. I showed up with a note from my squadron commander that said "Cadet Stonewall is a member of CAP, however he has yet to get a CAP ID card. We're checking on it". Somehow my CAPF 15 got lost and I didn't show up on the MML until after encampment.
So yeah, I attended encampment before I was officially a CAP member. I'm pretty sure I flew an O-flight too. But [darn] it, don't let that cadet march in the Veterans Day parade >:D
Same thing happened to me except I was working at the Red Cross command center and on ground teams the day after Hurricane Hugo tore through South Carolina. I spent many hours loading and unloading trucks with food and water and I spent the rest of the time doing community surveys, road clearing, etc in Charleston, SC. I had joined back in June of 1989, Hurricane Hugo landed in September of 1989 and I finally showed up on the membership roster in December 1989.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 06:04:08 PM
To the one comment - as a middle-aged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male with no physical or mental impairments - I'm not in any protected class that I know of.
So if you interviewed with a membership Committee that was predominately African American or Female and they said that you weren't a good fit for the organization because you were white or male that EEO would not apply to you? or that they felt that you weren't a good fit because you didn't go to the same church as them? No protections would be afforded you by EEO because you are not a protected class? Not the way I read it. EEO is there to protect you as well not just to protect those that are the most frequent targets of discrimination.
Quote from: EMT-83 on November 14, 2011, 07:09:04 PM
Having once been named in an EO complaint from a member of a protected class (that was a fun call to receive from NHQ), my advice is to do your job correctly and consistently. If you can demonstrate that you hold everyone to the same standard, you should be fine. Pick and choose folks to apply a different standard to, and you could have some problems.
BTW, the complaint was not sustained. The EO compliance officer determined that while the person in question was a member of a protected class (as defined in the regulations), they were not exempt from meeting the same standard as any other member. So it works both ways.
Glad to hear everything worked out for you. I was also subjected to an EEO complaint not through CAP though but through a former employer. The Complaint was made against everyone assigned on my shift because we "failed to act" when witnessing a perceived violation. Thankfully it was unsubstantiated against me because I was not actually working there that day. The Supervisor was the only person who got jammed up over it and not because there was a substantiated claim but that he failed to report the complaint or document it in anyway.
That same employer was subjected to Department of Justice reviews and lawsuits every time we had a hiring or promotion process because we did not hire/promote enough minorities, not to mention all the EEO lawsuits by individuals...lets just say at one point it was indeed the flavor of the year.
As far as suitability for Civil Air Patrol membership I would just ask commanders to document specifics why somebody doesn't meet the criteria for a particular unit not just that they were Creepy...but why they were creepy. What would be great would be quotes from a prospective member that are not consistent with our values and the like.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 06:04:08 PM
I agree anyone with common sense is going to document their concerns and will be able to use something more than "my spidey sense was tingling" when Creepy McWeirdington wanders into the unit and starts talking about how he wants to bring the Lord to our cadets (BTDT).
So if it's this guys religion to proselytize to others...Did you just reject him because of his religion? Would he have a valid EEO complaint? Could this guy maybe have been interested in the Character Development Instructor role? Could he have been trained on how we do Character development in CAP? Don't know...just if he filed a complaint how did you document it. I'm not saying anyone has the right to membership I'm just saying rejections need to be more specific than I just got a weird vibe
Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 09:18:51 PMSo if it's this guys religion to proselytize to others...Did you just reject him because of his religion?
((*sigh*)) Obviously not. However, there is no role
whatsoever for evangelizing in CAP, so someone walking in the door with no understanding of
our operations who begins to say things like that raise flag number one.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 09:18:51 PM
Would he have a valid EEO complaint?
I don't see how, since he was never denied membership. As is generally the case with new people who walk in the door with a "storied" history and
an intention to "show us". Simply asking direct questions about the claims he made and telling him directly how CAP works was enough for him to self-select. The rule of thumb that many units have about requiring members to attend at least three meetings before a membership committee will consider them assists this as well.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 08:24:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 06:04:08 PM
To the one comment - as a middle-aged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male with no physical or mental impairments - I'm not in any protected class that I know of.
So if you interviewed with a membership Committee that was predominately African American or Female and they said that you weren't a good fit for the organization because you were white or male that EEO would not apply to you? or that they felt that you weren't a good fit because you didn't go to the same church as them?
I guess it would, and if they actually said that out loud, they deserve what they get, but again, I don't fall into any minority category that I know of, so it's highly unlikely that I (or my ilk) would find themselves in that situation.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2011, 09:47:09 PM
I guess it would, and if they actually said that out loud, they deserve what they get, but again, I don't fall into any minority category that I know of, so it's highly unlikely that I (or my ilk) would find themselves in that situation.
That's one of the big misconceptions about EEO. People often Confuse "minority group" and "protected class" those terms mean different things. Everyone belongs to at least three protected classes. While being a middle aged white anglo saxon protestant male you are probably in the category with the lowest complaint statistics it doesn't mean you can't be a victim of it...it's about the subjective situation. I'm frequently in an area where members of the "nation of islam" (Malcom X's group) hand out pamphlets..and wouldn't you know it not only won't they give me a pamphlet but they won't even acknowledge my presence when asking for the time...I wonder why that is? (asked Rhetorically) Let's just say discrimination exists even if it is not overt.
As Far as the Creepy McWeirdington guy...I'm glad that he self selected out. And from what I've gathered by watching your posts I doubt an EEO complaint would have been likely. I was playing Devil's advocate based on the information that you posted...some may have seen it as possibly discriminatory...it's all about documentation and context as well as being able to articulate yourself. You can never go wrong if you use an element in the policy that outlines acceptable reason to reject membership. I still just ask people to avoid vague statements like "I just didn't like the guy" or "something just wasn't right" be specific.
As always thanks for the discussion. I hope nobody gets bent out of shape for something that is hypothetical.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 11:00:57 PMI hope nobody gets bent out of shape for something that is hypothetical.
Not me.
Hopefully, no CAP subject should be taboo here! On the other hand, many hypothetical scenarios presented in this argument are reduced to the absurd, and I think that we can actually take a look at the objective risks versus rewards without creating straw man arguments. Does a potential member have as many rights as an actual member to contest a decision based on EEO criteria? Probably, but as a never-accepted CAP member, their "rights" to our MARB procedures are essentially non-existent. Its much easier and far better to deny a weirdo entrance than it is to 2b or covertly drive them out with harassment and give the weirdo an arguable case for hostile workplace or other position of standing. Kind of like getting those Kirby Vacuum sales people to go away....once they are in the house, little short of shotguns and exorcism can drive them out!
Eclipse, I try to describe myself as "un-hyphenated- American" ( an curious argument paradox in that it contains two hyphens.....) or better yet, a "Real American" to better describe our "protected class".
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on November 14, 2011, 11:43:17 PMEclipse, I try to describe myself as "un-hyphenated- American" ( an curious argument paradox in that it contains two hyphens.....) or better yet, a "Real American" to better describe our "protected class".
Heh - nice.
Quote from: CAP KnowledgeBase
the unit commander and higher headquarters would need a very valid and documented reason (such as moral character) for the cadet to not be accepted by either the unit or higher headquarters.
One would think this would hold true for senior membership as well.
To bring this full-circle, but not necessarily related to the OP, your "valid and documented reason" would most likely be revealed during an interview with the membership committee.
If that interview is conducted with every prospective member, you're not discriminating against the occasional undesirable person, because everyone is subject to the same scrutiny.
I'm done. Whose turn to buy the donuts?
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 AM
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
We don't do donuts in CAWG. We do burritos! 8)
Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2011, 04:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 AM
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
We don't do donuts in CAWG. We do burritos! 8)
And churros. 8)
Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2011, 04:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 AM
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
We don't do donuts in CAWG. We do burritos! 8)
Are you saying there isn't a Dunkin Donuts on every corner?
Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2011, 04:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 AM
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
We don't do donuts in CAWG. We do burritos! 8)
Half the solution to being addicted to doughnuts is admitting you have a problem......You are in denial. Work the steps.
Major Lord
p.s The cornerstone to all good police work is the doughnut! Don't blaspheme against them!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2011, 02:01:35 PM
Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2011, 04:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 AM
I haven't heard nearly as many good senior member donuts jokes since I've been out here in CAWG as I did when I was a cadet in OHWG.
We don't do donuts in CAWG. We do burritos! 8)
Are you saying there isn't a Dunkin Donuts on every corner?
As far as I know, there are no Dunkin' Donuts stores in California.
Edit to add: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/dunkin-donuts-california.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/dunkin-donuts-california.html)
Hm, I did not know they are not a national chain. Here in Chicago, there is a Dunkin Donuts between every two Starbucks!
Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2011, 08:49:53 PM
Hm, I did not know they are not a national chain. Here in Chicago, there is a Dunkin Donuts between every two Starbucks!
You need to get out more... There's none where I'm at downstate - supposedly one guy owns the rights to this part of the state and he hasn't done anything with them.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2011, 08:49:53 PM
Hm, I did not know they are not a national chain. Here in Chicago, there is a Dunkin Donuts between every two Starbucks!
As someone who regularly gets out that way, I can tell you it is a D
2 desert out West.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 08:55:41 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 15, 2011, 08:49:53 PM
Hm, I did not know they are not a national chain. Here in Chicago, there is a Dunkin Donuts between every two Starbucks!
As someone who regularly gets out that way, I can tell you it is a D2 desert out West.
Time to revise my resume. Relocating to California? Ain't happening now.
(http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/Clock_ticking_away.gif)
Well, we still have "In & Out Burgers", which you won't find in the savage lands.....
Major Lord
What, there are areas of the Earth without two Dunkin's every block?! The Horror!!! :o
-resident New Englander, and admitted Dunkin Donut's addict
;D
Quote from: Major Lord on November 15, 2011, 10:22:00 PM
Well, we still have "In & Out Burgers", which you won't find in the savage lands.....
A t-shirt shop pretending to be a burger joint - not feelin' it.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on November 15, 2011, 10:22:00 PM
Well, we still have "In & Out Burgers", which you won't find in the savage lands.....
A t-shirt shop pretending to be a burger joint - not feelin' it.
Have you ever actually eaten one of their burgers?
They have a simple menu - burgers, fries and drinks. Those of us who go there like the product and the service. The burgers are better than anything else available in their marketing area, the fries are made fresh (like they used to be made in most fast food places 40 years ago), and the shakes taste good.
What more can you ask for.
As for the t-shirts, they are relatively recent, in terms of the company history.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 15, 2011, 10:50:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on November 15, 2011, 10:22:00 PM
Well, we still have "In & Out Burgers", which you won't find in the savage lands.....
A t-shirt shop pretending to be a burger joint - not feelin' it.
Have you ever actually eaten one of their burgers?
They have a simple menu - burgers, fries and drinks. Those of us who go there like the product and the service. The burgers are better than anything else available in their marketing area, the fries are made fresh (like they used to be made in most fast food places 40 years ago), and the shakes taste good.
What more can you ask for.
As for the t-shirts, they are relatively recent, in terms of the company history.
I've read that In N Out burger is one of the few chains left that does NOT use pink slime in their burgers.
If you don't know what pink slime is and don't mind being turned off to fast food in general feel free to google it.
:o
Quote from: Ron1319 on November 13, 2011, 09:38:53 PM
It's not particularly difficult to link those databases so that entry in eServices and payment entry would crosscheck with 2B history and raise a red flag. If a cadet is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, then they should definitely be 2B'd regardless of their desire to resign so that they show up in said database.
Sir, What is 2'bd ?
:-\
It means you get the boot out of CAP.
And no coming back without a waiver signed by the National Commander and Executive Director.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 15, 2011, 10:50:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on November 15, 2011, 10:22:00 PM
Well, we still have "In & Out Burgers", which you won't find in the savage lands.....
A t-shirt shop pretending to be a burger joint - not feelin' it.
Have you ever actually eaten one of their burgers?
Yes - meh. But then I don't like Culver's either, and they are supposed to be great, too.
Might be a product of the build-up. Since we don't have them in the Mid-West, anytime you go to Vegas or Cali, etc.,
everybody wants to go to IaOB. Give me something flame-broiled from the local mom and pop any day.
John_Bowers -
thanks for that just before dinner.
Quote from: RogueLeader on November 15, 2011, 11:40:55 PM
And no coming back without a waiver signed by the National Commander and Executive Director.
Technically true, but for clarity CAPF
2B is the
form used anytime a membership is terminated for any reason, including
voluntary resignation. "2B" is used as short-hand in the same way "court martial" or "Article 15" are used in the military since in
most cases it is used when an adverse condition requires involuntary termination.
I had one case where a cadet requested a voluntary 2B and then came back later as a senior with no issue.
In addition to voluntary resignation, members in the respective category may be terminated for the below reasons:
Cadets:
DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL
MARRIED
LACK OF INTEREST (failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse)
JOINED ARMED FORCES (Include service academics)
MOVED FROM THE AREA, DID NOT REQUEST TRANSFER.
FAILED TO PROGRESS SATISFACTORILY IN THE CAP CADET PROGRAM
MISCONDUCT (Summary of circumstances must be included)
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE ACADEMIC RECORD IN SCHOOL
Seniors:
CONDUCT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF CAP
CONVICTION OR FELONY
SEPARATION FROM ARMED FORCES WITH OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE
SERIOUS OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF CAP
MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT TO OR CONCERNING CAP REGULATIONS OR DIRECTIVES
HABITUAL FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTY
SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OVER EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
FAILURE TO OBEY RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS OF HIGHER AUTHORITY
INSUBORDINATION
FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
ILLITERACY
OTHER. (Explain)
There's In-N-Out in the suburbs of Dallas now..
Quote from: a2capt on November 16, 2011, 12:01:03 AM
There's In-N-Out in the suburbs of Dallas now..
I think this got off subject. :angel:
At least we aren't talking about uniforms >:D
We could always bring it back to uniforms by asking if you wear your uniform to In-and-Out.
>:D
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 11:41:24 PM
I don't like Culver's
I knew there was something off about you... ;)
There is an In& Out burger right off the Travis Exit on the way to Travis AFB. Lots of uniform people. We don't have "Steak and Shake" or "Piggly Wiggly's" in California, but you don't have El Pollo Loco! People buy the T-shirts because they are from the best chain ( actually, one family owned ) of burger joints in the free world. All their employees look like Mormon Boy Scouts or the Girl next store that was too goodnice for you. Not a nose piercing in the group, and each and every one of them speaks English! It's a great place for an after meeting dinner with the SQ.
When Cadets come to CAWG for encampment, there are two places they want to go a) In & Out ( they could be from dirka-dirkistan and still want I&O burgers and shakes) And of course, b) The famous church of the black Jesus outside Camp SLO, where Cadets have stopped for years to have their picture taken in front of the stained glass window. ( The people who actually go to the church have no idea why there are cadets lined up for photos in front of their church, so please don't tell them!)
To address the 2b comment someone made earlier, I don't think that you can 2b a member for "cause" after they resign; That would not be sporting. Sending in a 2b form on a voluntary drop out is probably the right thing to do, but a post facto 2b "For cause" could infringe on a members right to appeal the decision. Its interesting to note that pregnancy is no longer cause to 2b a Cadet, and that "Sexual Deviancy" is no longer cause to terminate a Senior Member. So unmarried, pregnant cadets must be retained, but married pregnant cadets must be 2b'd . Sometimes the world is just too darn complicated!
Major Lord
Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 11:52:43 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on November 15, 2011, 11:40:55 PM
And no coming back without a waiver signed by the National Commander and Executive Director.
Technically true, but for clarity CAPF 2B is the form used anytime a membership is terminated for any reason, including
voluntary resignation. "2B" is used as short-hand in the same way "court martial" or "Article 15" are used in the military since in
most cases it is used when an adverse condition requires involuntary termination.
I had one case where a cadet requested a voluntary 2B and then came back later as a senior with no issue.
In addition to voluntary resignation, members in the respective category may be terminated for the below reasons:
Cadets:
DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL
MARRIED
LACK OF INTEREST (failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse)
JOINED ARMED FORCES (Include service academics)
MOVED FROM THE AREA, DID NOT REQUEST TRANSFER.
FAILED TO PROGRESS SATISFACTORILY IN THE CAP CADET PROGRAM
MISCONDUCT (Summary of circumstances must be included)
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE ACADEMIC RECORD IN SCHOOL
Seniors:
CONDUCT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF CAP
CONVICTION OR FELONY
SEPARATION FROM ARMED FORCES WITH OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE
SERIOUS OR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF CAP
MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT TO OR CONCERNING CAP REGULATIONS OR DIRECTIVES
HABITUAL FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTY
SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OVER EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
FAILURE TO OBEY RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS OF HIGHER AUTHORITY
INSUBORDINATION
FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
ILLITERACY
OTHER. (Explain)
Cadets who attend the service academies are not required to terminate their membership or turn senior(until the turn 21 anyway). CAPR 39-2 Para 2-5.
Quote from: ol'fido on November 16, 2011, 01:58:27 AM
Cadets who attend the service academies are not required to terminate their membership or turn senior(until the turn 21 anyway). CAPR 39-2 Para 2-5.[/quote]
Correct - the above is just a copy / paste direct from the current rev of the form.
...and Steak & Shake has appeared in Las Vegas, however buried in a casino as yet another lure to drag you past the machines so you'll pull that handle and perhaps never make it to that food counter ...
On the pregnant cadet, it's because of equality. Male can make female pregnant, and female gets the 2B. So.. the solution, a maternity uniform for cadets.
Great role model, too. ;-)
Ignore - tried to fix my quotes above.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on November 16, 2011, 12:03:42 AM
Quote from: a2capt on November 16, 2011, 12:01:03 AM
There's In-N-Out in the suburbs of Dallas now..
I think this got off subject. :angel:
At least we aren't talking about uniforms >:D
I was thinking the same thing...could we stick to what this topic is on please?
Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 01:40:44 AM
To address the 2b comment someone made earlier, I don't think that you can 2b a member for "cause" after they resign; That would not be sporting. Sending in a 2b form on a voluntary drop out is probably the right thing to do, but a post facto 2b "For cause" could infringe on a members right to appeal the decision. Its interesting to note that pregnancy is no longer cause to 2b a Cadet, and that "Sexual Deviancy" is no longer cause to terminate a Senior Member. So unmarried, pregnant cadets must be retained, but married pregnant cadets must be 2b'd . Sometimes the world is just too darn complicated!
Well...I think it depends on context. If the member is voluntarily resigning to avoid being terminated for cause, I think it would be in the best interest of Civil Air Patrol to have that member terminated for Cause. Voluntary resignations would be okay for those that just stop showing up to meetings instead of being 2b'd for Habitual failure to perform duties. But If you find out that Property becomes missing and it's traced back to a member and the member tries to resign before being booted...then a Causal 2B would be in order.
How would 2b'ing a member for cause infringe on their appellate process? Unless your premise is that they can't appeal because they have already terminated their membership.
There is no appeals process for a voluntary resignation. There is one for Causal termination. If a Commander has a valid reason for terminating membership instead of allowing the member to resign, the resignation should be denied and the Causal action process initiated.