I am reading AFI 33-332, "AIR FORCE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES PROGRAM"
And I discovered that it says:
"This Instruction applies to Air Force Active Duty, Air Reserve Command
(AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG) units, government civilians, contractors and Civil Air
Patrol when performing functions for the Air Force,"
This is not the only AFI I've discovered that is applicable to CAP AUX ON that is not referenced on the capmembers "other publications (https://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/other-publications-1709/)" page, nor is it covered in the custhelp doc on AF regulations covering CAP (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/383/~/air-force-regulations-covering-civil-air-patrol).
As I discover these instructions/regulations, I intend to tag them and keep a record of which apply to CAP all the time, and which apply to us during CAP AUX ON time.
Would a unified PDF be useful to other members here of these docs as I build the list out? Should I open a helpdesk ticket to get the "other publications" and custhelp link updated as well?
Do I have too much spare time I should be using on other projects?
I would wonder, is the information duplicated in some CAP pub somewhere, and therefore it was decided it wasn't necessary to reference the same material in different manuals? Is the reg contradictory to the way we are doing things, and therefore should call for our current regs to be amended?
I would say that if this info isn't already in our regs somewhere, and not following it could hurt our relationship with USAF, jeopardize a mission, etc. then it needs to be added. In the mean time, a pdf with a list of the regs and pages could be helpful.
Not sure how an AFI is supposed to be binding on us even if the AFI says it is. There are AFIs binding on CAP-USAF and on how the AF uses us, but unless it has been incorporated into a CAP regulation in some fashion how in the world are we supposed to even know about it?
I actually don't have a problem with the concept, but as a practical matter there are some issues in how this could be implemented as things stand now.