Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ?

[DrJbdm]

  Here's a hot topic for discussion. Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ while serving on Air Force Assigned missions or U.S. Air Force Aux missions?

  It might require a small change in the UCMJ laws to allow this. Here's how the article 2 of the UCMJ reads. I listed the change it might require in italics. that line subsection 8 (a) is not currently in the UCMJ, I wrote that segment to show the language it might require to make the UCMJ applicable to us.  However there is a small part that's already in the UCMJ that reads: and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. that might already apply to us, Of course I'm not an attorney so I wouldn't know if there was case law that already interpreted that line.

  It's interesting food for thought, I think a change like this might serve to make us a more professional organisations when it comes to standards. IF our members where subject to the UCMJ while serving on AF missions. What do you'll think?


Article 2 UCMJ:

ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:


(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (emphasis mine)

  (a) Officers of the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Auxiliary while serving on U.S. Air Force assigned missions or on missions deemed as U.S. Air Force Auxiliary missions as defined by Congress. (italics mine)

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (IMPORTANT NOTE: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007, CONGRESS CHANGED THIS PROVISION TO READ: "In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."

Disabled smileys - MIKE

[RiverAux]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

[Pylon]

  Here's a hot topic for discussion. Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ while serving on Air Force Assigned missions or U.S. Air Force Aux missions?

I don't understand what the issues we've been having or could potentially have that we're trying to prevent by doing this.  Could you perhaps elaborate on why you think this would benefit CAP?

The UCMJ can be terribly restricting.  Why subject us to an additional set (a substantial set) of rules if we don't need to?

[Tubacap]

Having never served in the military, what are some restrictions that it would place on us that are not already in place by our own regulations?

If it were to happen, who would regulate it?

[lordmonar]

Could it be made to work?  Maybe.  But what benifit does it have when you are only on an AFAM for a couple of hours or maybe a day or two?

If the UCMJ was in force at the start of the AFAM and did not end until the AFAM was officaly closed....everyone would be under said authority.  That means no one can go home because you have to go to work, take care of the kids, walk the dog or other personal buisness.

Secondly.....I am a CAP Capt.....and a USAF MSgt.....what happens to me when I order a CAP 2nd Lt who is also a USAF 2nd Lt around?

If we are subject to the UCMJ then any officer can boss us around.

If we violate the UCMJ and are taken into custody....who is going to try us?  Who is going to compensate us?

No....go....this sounds like a solution looking for a problem.  A solution that would create many more problems in the long run.

[bosshawk]

As far as I am concerned, this is a moot subject.  I am already covered by the UCMJ and have been for just under 50 years.

I have an opinion about putting CAP under the UCMJ:  NO     NO     NO.

It would require an act of Congress: what a thought??

It is somewhat akin to an old saying that a lot of you are too young to have ever heard: it is like making a silk purse out of a sows ear.  To put it simply, there are too many "Officers" in CAP who have no idea what being a member of the armed forces is all about and CAP has no capability to teach them in any meaningful way.

I could go on and on, but I won't.  Just an idea whose time has not come and likely will never come.

[Eclipse]

No.

[Monty]

No.

Oh I don't know, Bob.  What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right?

Article 89 make you nervous?  Article 117? 

[MIKE]

I would be in favor of something similar to the RAFVR/T system.  I read something on ACC about some VR/T officers who were being court marshaled for some financial stuff.

[wingnut]

Oh Yes

Sign me up for  the UCMJ CAP, now I can be really screwed no pay, buy my own uniforms, safety equipment, pay for hotel rooms when on a mission, oh yes pay for fuel and oil 9sometimes over ( $1,000) and wait for 2 months to be reimbursed.

Yes sign me up for that CAP too, I could then get an article 15 for being fat and they will give me a month without pay. . . , or hard labor (need to paint the CAP trailer).   

Sorry no pay and benefits, NO CAP UCMJ

[SarDragon]

In a word, NO.

BTDT, no t-shirt.

Read the sig.

[DrJbdm]

The reason I even bring this up is that it seems that most SDFs, who are arguably less military then CAP fall under their State UCMJ. case in point the Texas State Guard (SDF) falls under the TCMJ (Texas Code of Military Justice) to what extent they are accountable to it I don't know. But they are a volunteer organization much the same as CAP is but with almost no budget.

 My point is that PERHAPS having us fall under the UCMJ to some extent while performing AFAMs might bring some very needed credibility to us from the AF. I think it would be problamatic is some areas but CAP needs something that ties us in closer to the AF, and perhaps having limited jurisdiction under the UCMJ might help add that extra credibility we need. How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs. As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders. Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

[Al Sayre]

When I start getting paid for my CAP service, then I might consider it, but having BTDT, I would say absolutely no way.  There are too many things in the UCMJ that could be used by a vindictive member to bring charges against a "political" rival  such as "Prejudicial to good order and discipline" for someone who argues with an IC or a higher ranking officer, Unauthorized absence or "missing movment" for those who miss a meeting or a flight during an AFAM.  We have more than enough pettiness in this organization without adding the force of law to it.  Right now, whenever you have had enough BS, you can say "Screw it, I quit, I'm going home"  try that under UCMJ on a mission and you could wind up making little rocks from big ones at Leavenworth.  Commanders have a lot of power for non-judicial punishment under UCMJ, and then you'd also need an entire JAG corps for anything that doesn't fall under NJP (Courts-martial).  This is a giant can of worms that is better left unopened.

[ZigZag911]

This seems like an idea that would lead to a lot of dissension in the ranks, and would further clog an already somewhat overtaxed administrative system.

I'd have to say 'no'.

[O-Rex]

No, no, and um. . . oh yeah: no!

Allowing the head of a household the right to spank you doesn't necessarily entitle you to a place at the family dinner table.

Looking for credibility? train, learn, internalize, then repeat the process.

Being subject to the UCMJ, even for an instant, means surrendering your civil rights (that's why they call us civilians!) 

Doing so will NOT give us any more USAFAUX mojo than we alreay have (or don't have.)

[arajca]

The reason I even bring this up is that it seems that most SDFs, who are arguably less military then CAP fall under their State UCMJ. case in point the Texas State Guard (SDF) falls under the TCMJ (Texas Code of Military Justice) to what extent they are accountable to it I don't know. But they are a volunteer organization much the same as CAP is but with almost no budget.

The reason some - or most - sdf's fall under their state version of the UCMJ is because the enacting legislation specifies the sdf will follow the state UCMJ. That doesn't apply to CAP - nor should it.

My point is that PERHAPS having us fall under the UCMJ to some extent while performing AFAMs might bring some very needed credibility to us from the AF. I think it would be problamatic is some areas but CAP needs something that ties us in closer to the AF, and perhaps having limited jurisdiction under the UCMJ might help add that extra credibility we need. How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs. As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders. Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

From what I have heard - from folks in the emergency management and le fields - is way back when, CAP members  came in with massive egos (reportedly, larger than fighter pilot egos) and did not want to work with the authorities because of their 'federal' status. When say way back when, I mean just that - one emergency manager I know wasn't even born when the events that led to the banishment happened, but he still followed it.

CAP falls under the same civilian laws that the rest of the US does. There are far too many potential abuses possible under UCMJ for a pure volunteer force with no (for the vast majority of the members) military knowledge to deal with. There are many individuals who would love to have the tools available under UCMJ, but for the entirely wrong reasons. Those who have experience with the UCMJ (I am among them, although for not as long as most) understand the problems caused by putting CAP under UCMJ restrictions is a VERY BAD IDEA.

[flyerthom]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.


That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

[PhotogPilot]

Oh Yes

Sign me up for  the UCMJ CAP, now I can be really screwed no pay, buy my own uniforms, safety equipment, pay for hotel rooms when on a mission, oh yes pay for fuel and oil 9sometimes over ( $1,000) and wait for 2 months to be reimbursed.

Yes sign me up for that CAP too, I could then get an article 15 for being fat and they will give me a month without pay. . . , or hard labor (need to paint the CAP trailer).   

Sorry no pay and benefits, NO CAP UCMJ

Someone needs to paint the orange triangles on top of CAP vehicles!

[RiverAux]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

Job protections are an entirely different matter.  Heck, some SDFs are under their state UCMJs and don't get any job protection at all.  Separate issues. 

[Pylon]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

Job protections are an entirely different matter.  Heck, some SDFs are under their state UCMJs and don't get any job protection at all.  Separate issues. 

Agreed.  Employment matters for CAP missions is a matter than can be dealt with entirely separately, without putting CAP under the entire UCMJ.  Both would require legislative action, so why add all the extra burden, hassle, problems, and potential abuse of the UCMJ on CAP members for a smaller benefit which could be proposed separately?

I still haven't seen any positive reason that's convinced me it would be a good idea to even explore proposing this.