Misdemeanor

[duffman1741]

So I have a quick question with a situation I'm currently dealing with. So I was charged with a misdemeanor for theft under $500. The story behind it, isn't the issue. I've had a couple of cops tell me, the entire situation was bogus. Anyway back to the story, so I pretty much lost my apartment, had my car repossessed the same time the incident occurred. Well after getting out and being charged with the charge, I went to the meetings for two weeks, before my Squadron Commander received a text with my mugshot. Now I'm awaiting a board to decide if I can stay in or not. My squadron commander started this process because I didn't tell her right away. Well I told her my mind set wasn't that of CAP, just mainly attending on tuesday nights to get some work done. I don't know what to do and any advice anyone can give me would be appreciated. This may sound stupid, but at the time, I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest. Since I'm only on probation while I'm paying court cost, after I finish paying I'm done with everything.


                     A lost Lieutenant

[JK657]

So, if you're on probation and paying court costs the more accurate description of your situation is that you were convicted of misdemeanor theft, not just arrested for it. If the cops thought it was bogus why were you charged and convicted? You then knowingly left all this info out to your boss?

[Spaceman3750]

A board doesn't make the initial decision if you get to stay. If your commander wants you out, she should complete a form 2B for conduct unbecoming. At this point, your membership is terminated. You can then appeal to the next higher echelon, who will convene a review board. If the board and the echelon commander uphold the termination, then you're out for good, unless someone didn't follow procedure or the termination was retaliatory. Then you can appeal to the MARP. (Note: I'm doing this from memory, someone let me know if I missed a step here)

Assuming all the facts are here, and that you're an otherwise upstanding member, I wouldn't terminate you for a misdemeanor like that as long as it didn't involve CAP assets or money. I think the claim that the termination is because you didn't tell the CC is questionable.

[JeffDG]

If a commander wants to convene a board to make a recommendation about a potential 2B, that would be her option to do so.  In fact, I think that's a prudent option before imposing such a sanction.

That would not change the fact that if termination is indicated, and the commander accepts that recommendation, that an appeal to Group would not also convene an appeal board, as at that level it's required by regulation.

[SAREXinNY]

Reading that small print is important:

"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."

You said "I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest", but you did affirm the above oath at one point.

Personally, I'd be much more understanding if a SM came up to me in private and said "here's the situation..." rather than finding it out on my own.

[Spaceman3750]

A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.

[MacGruff]

Reading that small print is important:

"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."

You said "I didn't know I was required to inform my commander of my arrest", but you did affirm the above oath at one point.

Personally, I'd be much more understanding if a SM came up to me in private and said "here's the situation..." rather than finding it out on my own.

You're assuming the opening post was made by a Senior Member? 

[Майор Хаткевич]

98% chance it was.

[Critical AOA]

I agree.
No mention of his parents' role in the story.
He mentions losing his apartment and having his car repossessed.  This sounds like an adult's situation. 
He had a mug shot released.  I don't believe this happens in most jurisdictions to minors.

[lordmonar]

The "I lost my apartment" was the thing that let me to believe he was a Senior Member.

[MacGruff]

98% chance it was.

I agree with your assessment as there is a chance that the poster is still a youngster. From the CAP web site: " Cadets who become members before their 19th birthday may retain their cadet status until they reach 21 years of age."

I have seen 18 to 21 years olds who have had apartments, cars, and were living on their own. Haven't you?

My only caution here is that we do not know if the poster is a Senior Member or not from his words.

[SAREXinNY]

A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.

Re-read the membership application.  It says nothing about felony v misdemeanor.  It says:

"List on a separate sheet, all arrests or charges regardless of age or whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or
otherwise stricken from the court records. You must also include all military courts martial or non judicial punishment (Article 15,
UCMJ or Captain's Mast). Failure to provide all required information may result in your membership application being denied.
(Note: You may exclude minor traffic violations unless drugs, alcohol or injury were involved.)

The OP's situation sounds a bit more complex than just a "minor traffic violation".  But I do agree that I shouldn't ASSume it was a SM, although it sure sounds like that is the situation.

[Brad]

A misdemeanor doesn't affect membership eligibility, therefore, no notification is necessary by what you quoted.

Misdemeanors show up on criminal history inquiries the same as felonies do. Although I'm not sure to what extent though, as CAP is required by FBI policy to have their background checks run under a different category than the ones I run at work, so the specific information may vary, but in general misdemeanors will show up as well, and therefore that constitutes a change of the information you agree to notify your commander of.

[Eclipse]

Many people confuse "misdemeanor" with "trivial" or "minor", and that's not always the case.  The textbook definition
says that a misdemeanor is "lessor", there's plenty of bad behavior at the high end of "lessor" that involves things we don't
want or need in CAP.

Further to that, because of the nature of the court system these days, people accused of felony-level offenses may be
plead-out to a misdemeanor which clears the docket, but doesn't change what the person actually did to get arrested to start with.

That's why it's important for the Unit CC to know exactly what happened to make an informed decision that protects all parties,
but especially the corporation and its members.

[Майор Хаткевич]

98% chance it was.

I have seen 18 to 21 years olds who have had apartments, cars, and were living on their own. Haven't you?

I'm 23. Been living "on my own" since 18 1/2.

[flyboy53]

Regardless of the hair splitting by the individual and the magnitude of what ever charge, it is still the unit commander's prerogative to initiate a membership board and have his fitness as a member addressed. Given what was written here, which is probably half of the story, it's up to the member to prove his fitness for continued membership.

The board may rule in his favor. if not, there's always the appeal process.

[mwewing]

Reading that small print is important:

"I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front
of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination."

I had been trying to find something that spelled out an obligation to report arrests/convictions that occur after someone becomes a member, and there it is. That said, I doubt seriously that many members pay very close attention to that statement in the oath despite it telling us to "read carefully." I am not saying this excuses non-compliance, but since I doubt anyone is planning to commit crimes at the time they apply for membership, it probably doesn't really stand out to them. For relatively minor charges, unrelated to CAP, I can also believe that one may not think about possible consequences within our organization, and therefore might neglect to inform the commander as required. Again, not making excuses for people, but I think their thought process and intent are important factors for a commander to consider when determining if the act warrants membership termination.

Also of note is the following excerpt from CAPR39-2 regarding possible reasons one may be unsuitable for membership:

Reg. 39-2. 3-2 d.(2)
"A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence."

One conviction for misdemeanor larceny/theft does not a pattern make. Going solely off of the membership application, CAPR 39-2, and the information provided by the OP (and if I buy the explanation for not reporting), I wouldn't initiate membership termination. This gets a little more complicated if you read the causes for membership termination in CAPR 35-3. Several of the listed offenses can be rather subjective in nature. It sounds like the OP has been having a difficult time lately. If this conviction is only one piece of a much larger performance/suitability issue, it must be addressed.

As others have stated, it really boils down to the discretion of the commander. The commander is free to interpret these regulations and apply them to a situation as necessary to make a decision. That commander is also free to impanel a board to advise him/ her on a course of action.

[JeffDG]

Reg. 39-2. 3-2 d.(2)
"A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence."

You don't need to even go that far down the list:
"(1) Conduct involving moral turpitude."

Moral turpitude is not some reference to sexual morals, but a much more general category of behaviour.  Theft is defined by the federal government as a "crime involving moral turpitude", along with others like fraud, perjury, bribery, and tax evasion (among a host of others).

[Critical AOA]

The bottom line is that for all of us this is a moot issue without knowing the actual charges or the circumstances around them.  It is between this individual and his chain of command.

[Ned]

As a legal-type guy, I find this kind of "real world vs. CAP Regulations" interaction interesting.

And just like in most CAPTalk threads, the answer one gets depends on the way the question is asked.

For example, if we were to ask "May a senior member be terminated for cause for a single misdemeanor theft confiction?", I think the answer is clearly "yes."  Paragraph B4(b)(1) of CAPR 35-3 (Membership Termination) seems clear enough.  Seniors may be terminated for even a single incident of "conduct involving moral turpitude." And theft is a classic example of moral turpitude.  It is worth noting that it does not appear that a single conviction for petty theft would require termination, but it is plainly within a commander's discretion to do so.

On the other hand, if the question is "Must a senior member report an arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor theft conviction?", I think the answer is less clear. 

Argument A:  "The F12 itself says so." As others have noted, the current F12 does require prospective members to list "all arrests or charges . . . " on a separate sheet of paper to accompany the application.  And contained within the oath of membership on the reverse of the form is a promise to "notify Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes to the information on the front of this form."

Laying aside the technicality that arrests are required to be listed on a separate sheet and therefore an new arrest is not a "change to information on the front of the form," is the more fundamental question of whether a form has any sort of regulatory authority.  Normally we would want to see a policy or regulation that requires us to do or not do something, rather than verbiage on a form.  We can certainly terminate folks for violating regulations, but it is less clear (at least to me) that we can terminate someone for violating a form.

Argument B.  "CAPR 39-2 (Membership) says so."  Paragraph 3-3(b) contains the following: "All senior members must notify the National Headquarters Screening Division (NHQ/PMM)of changes in the information originally submitted on their CAPF12 within 30 days of any change that might make the member ineligible for initial membership, (i.e. changes in residency status, military status, arrests, etc.)."

While it certainly talks about arrests having to be reported within 30 days, it appears only to address arrests that would make the member ineligible for initial membership.  That just refers us back to "suitability" criteria in paragragh 3-2(b) that talks about any felony or "a pattern of arrests and convictions . . . including . . . dishonesty."  As others have noted here, a single arrest by definition cannot arise to a "pattern of arrests" involving dishonesty.  Thus, it is not clear to me that the 39-2 requires the report of an arrest for an offense that does not appear to affect initial membership eligibility.

(And in an example of less than clear draftsmanship, this requirement is buried in a paragragh that talks about rescreening.  Most members would have no particular reason to be poking around in this paragraph to become aware of the requirment to report.)

Remember, I do not disagree that a senior member can be terminated for a single theft conviction, but it appears that a single petty theft conviction would not make an member ineligible for membership. Although that may seem somewhat inconsistent, it allows for someone to join who is leading a honest life despite a youthful mistake made years ago. 


There may be other arguments supporting why a member may be required to report a petty theft arrest, but I can't find any others at the moment.

Finally, if the question is "Should we have a clear regulation that requires members to report arrests and/or convictions?" I would answer yes.  That just seems like good policy for our Congressionally chartered 501c3 charitable corporation that has occasional Federal instrumentality status and an active cadet program training thousands of young people.

I've made a not to talk with the leadership about this.  Maybe a minor regulation tweak is in order to make it clear that reporting arrests is required.