How to locate membership status?

[mynetdude]

A transfer from any unit requires no intervention by the
current CC. 000 is no different.

unless that CC sees a reason to deny the transfer, then they must intervene as the current CC.

[Eclipse]

Yes, correct.  All transfers as automatic and immediate requiring no intervention, acceptance, approval by anyone from
the old unit. 

The old unit has 2 months to disapprove the transfer.

[jimmydeanno]

A note on the IG system.   The complainant does not have to have "proof" that they have a complaint.  It is the IG's job to find the proof

Ah I had the impression the complainant had to have proof, after all they are the ones pointing the fingers they obviously either don't like something or see something legitimately wrong and the last IG I talked to told me that I needed to cite every regulation that pertains to the complaint on the CAPF 30 so I assumed I needed proof otherwise I could have continued my ADA discrimination to the EOO (of course they found my findings baseless which I don't agree with but hey... that's kinda moot now).

As for the suspension... that's all been cleared up as of 10 minutes ago

There has to be a complaint that can be backed up by the CAP regulations.  It's up to the system to figure out where the evidence stacks up, or if there was actually a violation of the regulations.  The IG isn't a disciplinarian.  You file a complaint that the commander didn't follow the suspension rules, and they'll investigate and make a determination, based on the evidence that they gather, whether or not the regulation was actually broken.  Then, they will present the finding to the appropriate commander for action to be taken.

Of course, the system is designed to be used for things like "A cadet said I didn't shine my shoes enough", but for things like your situation where it is clear that there is some sort of something "weird" going on.  Mishandling of adverse personnel actions, sexual harassment, equal opportunity violations, mishandling of monies/property, etc.  The worst that happens is they say "That's not a violation of the regulations."

[Camas]

]the commander would direct the personnel officer to start it.  The transfer would actually have to be b done at wing as you can only transfer in to a squadron not out.

Must be different for 000 because I was able to transfer over a dozen a few months ago.

Used to be one could only transfer into his/her own unit but I believe that's changed. Now a DP can move a member from and to a 000 unit.

[lordmonar]

So it would seem......I just checked it out and I can transfer to 000.   Cool.

[mynetdude]

A note on the IG system.   The complainant does not have to have "proof" that they have a complaint.  It is the IG's job to find the proof

Ah I had the impression the complainant had to have proof, after all they are the ones pointing the fingers they obviously either don't like something or see something legitimately wrong and the last IG I talked to told me that I needed to cite every regulation that pertains to the complaint on the CAPF 30 so I assumed I needed proof otherwise I could have continued my ADA discrimination to the EOO (of course they found my findings baseless which I don't agree with but hey... that's kinda moot now).

As for the suspension... that's all been cleared up as of 10 minutes ago

There has to be a complaint that can be backed up by the CAP regulations.  It's up to the system to figure out where the evidence stacks up, or if there was actually a violation of the regulations.  The IG isn't a disciplinarian.  You file a complaint that the commander didn't follow the suspension rules, and they'll investigate and make a determination, based on the evidence that they gather, whether or not the regulation was actually broken.  Then, they will present the finding to the appropriate commander for action to be taken.

Of course, the system is designed to be used for things like "A cadet said I didn't shine my shoes enough", but for things like your situation where it is clear that there is some sort of something "weird" going on.  Mishandling of adverse personnel actions, sexual harassment, equal opportunity violations, mishandling of monies/property, etc.  The worst that happens is they say "That's not a violation of the regulations."

Yeah well "he said she said" isn't going to be enough for a complaint because people can talk and not break a single regulation (other than swearing, yelling, etc including hazing); I KNOW what I heard, and I KNOW what the intent was but I can't back any of it up, nobody was with me at the time it happened but they were ALL aware because they had individual conversations with the same person I did because he would say specifics to those individuals about me (and others as well); according to ADA law (IANAL so I don't claim to be an expert on this) for discrimination to take place action has to have happened preventing you getting what is afforded to everyone else as long as you're capable of doing it and you're qualified to do it; the guy wanted to flat out refuse to approve my CAP DL and I have no adverse driving history and I have no restriction other than to wear eyeglasses but I choose not to drive in the rain not because my Dr tells me I can't.

I had one person try to tell me that the ADA is only to protect your livelihood in a setting where money is involved (gainfully employed, public access (stores, movies, hospitals, etc)).  The ADA doesn't just cover that; but that's besides the point.  IMO IG should have asked other people how what the former CC said to me and them affects what the complaint was about but they didn't even bother with that.

Anyway its all moot now; I've accomplished one goal and that was getting the former CC to not be commander, I'm satisfied with the results however I had hoped for better; I'd settle for something than nothing.

[mynetdude]

So it would seem......I just checked it out and I can transfer to 000.   Cool.

on your own or as DP/CC?

[lordmonar]

I'm an assistant personnel officer and a lot of other hats so I'm not sure

[abdsp51]

Anyway its all moot now; I've accomplished one goal and that was getting the former CC to not be commander, I'm satisfied with the results however I had hoped for better; I'd settle for something than nothing.

Sounds like you have/had a personal vendetta and agenda against your former CC.  With an attitude like that no wonder the CC of your old unit isn't jumping to have you transferred back. 

[Eclipse]

Yeah well "he said she said" isn't going to be enough for a complaint because people can talk and not break a single regulation (other than swearing, yelling, etc including hazing); I KNOW what I heard, and I KNOW what the intent was but I can't back any of it up, nobody was with me at the time it happened but they were ALL aware because they had individual conversations with the same person I did because he would say specifics to those individuals about me (and others as well); according to ADA law (IANAL so I don't claim to be an expert on this) for discrimination to take place action has to have happened preventing you getting what is afforded to everyone else as long as you're capable of doing it and you're qualified to do it; the guy wanted to flat out refuse to approve my CAP DL and I have no adverse driving history and I have no restriction other than to wear eyeglasses but I choose not to drive in the rain not because my Dr tells me I can't.

I had one person try to tell me that the ADA is only to protect your livelihood in a setting where money is involved (gainfully employed, public access (stores, movies, hospitals, etc)).  The ADA doesn't just cover that; but that's besides the point.  IMO IG should have asked other people how what the former CC said to me and them affects what the complaint was about but they didn't even bother with that.

Anyway its all moot now; I've accomplished one goal and that was getting the former CC to not be commander, I'm satisfied with the results however I had hoped for better; I'd settle for something than nothing.

Always the picture comes together when you have more crayons.

ADA applies to people in a protected class.  "Choosing not to drive in the rain." is not a protected class.

If the Commander felt that you, for whatever reason, should not be driving a CAP vehicle, then good on him for refusing to approve the DL.
The fact that you have indicated publicly some reticence to drive at night, likely is the typical "30% admission" of more issue
that people will make when trying to justify the situation.  I have personally denied CAP DL's to people I felt
have poor decision making ability, or other related issues.  This is the fiduciary responsibility of every commander.
Good on him for at least not avoiding the situation, only to regret it later.

If you felt you were discriminated against, there is a Complaint process for that, one that CAP takes very seriously.
You have indicated you have no grounds for a sustainable complaint.

You resigned, formally, from the unit and are "shocked" when you are put in 000.

Absent being in the room, and what are most likely the reams of "explanation" and emails, not to mention the burdensome "conversations"
which have likely accompanied a situation where your response should have been "Oh well, if they don't want me to drive a COV, I won't drive a COV, less
for me to worry about...",  those of us who have worn a CC badge have filled in the rest of the lines, your final statement about wanting to have the commander
"not to be the commander" was the period.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

[mynetdude]

Yeah well "he said she said" isn't going to be enough for a complaint because people can talk and not break a single regulation (other than swearing, yelling, etc including hazing); I KNOW what I heard, and I KNOW what the intent was but I can't back any of it up, nobody was with me at the time it happened but they were ALL aware because they had individual conversations with the same person I did because he would say specifics to those individuals about me (and others as well); according to ADA law (IANAL so I don't claim to be an expert on this) for discrimination to take place action has to have happened preventing you getting what is afforded to everyone else as long as you're capable of doing it and you're qualified to do it; the guy wanted to flat out refuse to approve my CAP DL and I have no adverse driving history and I have no restriction other than to wear eyeglasses but I choose not to drive in the rain not because my Dr tells me I can't.

I had one person try to tell me that the ADA is only to protect your livelihood in a setting where money is involved (gainfully employed, public access (stores, movies, hospitals, etc)).  The ADA doesn't just cover that; but that's besides the point.  IMO IG should have asked other people how what the former CC said to me and them affects what the complaint was about but they didn't even bother with that.

Anyway its all moot now; I've accomplished one goal and that was getting the former CC to not be commander, I'm satisfied with the results however I had hoped for better; I'd settle for something than nothing.

Always the picture comes together when you have more crayons.

ADA applies to people in a protected class.  "Choosing not to drive in the rain." is not a protected class.

If the Commander felt that you, for whatever reason, should not be driving a CAP vehicle, then good on him for refusing to approve the DL.
The fact that you have indicated publicly some reticence to drive at night, likely is the typical "30% admission" of more issue
that people will make when trying to justify the situation.  I have personally denied CAP DL's to people I felt
have poor decision making ability, or other related issues.  This is the fiduciary responsibility of every commander.
Good on him for at least not avoiding the situation, only to regret it later.

If you felt you were discriminated against, there is a Complaint process for that, one that CAP takes very seriously.
You have indicated you have no grounds for a sustainable complaint.

You resigned, formally, from the unit and are "shocked" when you are put in 000.

Absent being in the room, and what are most likely the reams of "explanation" and emails, not to mention the burdensome "conversations"
which have likely accompanied a situation where your response should have been "Oh well, if they don't want me to drive a COV, I won't drive a COV, less
for me to worry about...",  those of us who have worn a CC badge have filled in the rest of the lines, your final statement about wanting to have the commander
"not to be the commander" was the period.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

You're right a person choosing not to drive in the rain is not a protected class; a person with a medically documented vision history is, the choice to not drive is a personal safety decision and has no bearing on CAP because there is no fiduciary/liability responsibilities so long as I can demonstrate the ability to be safe and not put others in danger.  I'll give you a hint: former CC says "he is blind, he can't see" (but he has said that of another member who also has vision problems and can drive too) let's try that again; I have a driver's license, I see a doctor regularly (my doctor requires it if I want to continue driving) and yes I may have difficulty seeing the computer screen and I do excellent driving plus I'm about to get a whole lotta vision here pretty soon that may allow me to personally be comfortable with driving in the rain again.

You're right I did resign; whether or not intentional or not; I was not aware it would require a transfer to 000; its never happened before in my almost 8 years in CAP this just recently started happening probably in the last 3-4 years now and I didn't know about it.

My comment about the CC not being the CC was for good reason; he almost destroyed the entire squadron he told everybody he wanted to shut down the squadron if he quit (he had been saying that from day one of his CC hat); was unfit to be a CC otherwise I would have no qualms about most of his decisions he has rendered except for discrimination of having a CAP DL and being in logistics but none of you can know the whole story because you're only seeing my side obviously.

I hope it works out; if not I have other plans/ideas

[abdsp51]

You cite discrimination, but have nothing to prove it.  Sorry but if you have vision issues that is the CC's discretion to approve a CAP DL or not.  Also you serve on staff at the CC's discretion and if he feels that your vision would hamper your performance in logistics then it is his/her discretion to have you in that slot.  That in and of itself is not discrimination. 

By your own admission you have a hard time seeing a computer screen then maybe logistics isn't the best place for you. 

Sounds like the old CC made a judgement call call for the better of the unit and you didn't like it and resigned.  Now you are suffering the repercussions of that decision and want to cry foul. 

[Eclipse]

have no adverse driving history and I have no restriction other than to wear eyeglasses but I choose not to drive in the rain not because my Dr tells me I can't.

You're right a person choosing not to drive in the rain is not a protected class; a person with a medically documented vision history is, the choice to not drive is a personal safety decision and has no bearing on CAP because there is no fiduciary/liability responsibilities so long as I can demonstrate the ability to be safe and not put others in danger.  I'll give you a hint: former CC says "he is blind, he can't see" (but he has said that of another member who also has vision problems and can drive too) let's try that again; I have a driver's license, I see a doctor regularly (my doctor requires it if I want to continue driving) and yes I may have difficulty seeing the computer screen and I do excellent driving plus I'm about to get a whole lotta vision here pretty soon that may allow me to personally be comfortable with driving in the rain again.

You're going to need to pick a vector and stick with it.

Either you have a "medically documented vision history" or you don't, and if you told me that you were "ok to drive unless it rains" you wouldn't
get a CAP DL, either.  What did you expect to do if you were depended on to drive a vehicle and the weather changed on the return trip?
If you are corrected to within the legal limit to drive a vehicle of the respective COV class, the rest is irrelevant.  If you chose, to bring your
limitations, whatever they may be, to the attention of the CC, and with that knowledge he decided you should not be driving COVs, what did you expect?
Further, unless you are legally blind, not "euphemistically blind", you are not in a protected class.  Having limitations does not give
you ADA protections, it means you're a human being.

Also, the ADA does not trump safety or performance issues.  It indicates "reasonable accommodations", it's not the automatic ban-hammer people
try to use it for.

So even if it did apply, it's irrelevant, but it doesn't apply, so there you go.

Further to this, if your entire CAP experience hinged on whether you could have a CAP DL, then there's something wrong there.
Which to those of us reading between the lines, means there's a lot more to this story, perhaps in your favor, but we're not
seeing the whole picture here.  I've had a CAP DL forever, and if my commander decided I shouldn't be driving for CAP anymore,
and he had a valid reason (like I told him I have sight issues), then I'd FIMO.

[mynetdude]

have no adverse driving history and I have no restriction other than to wear eyeglasses but I choose not to drive in the rain not because my Dr tells me I can't.

You're right a person choosing not to drive in the rain is not a protected class; a person with a medically documented vision history is, the choice to not drive is a personal safety decision and has no bearing on CAP because there is no fiduciary/liability responsibilities so long as I can demonstrate the ability to be safe and not put others in danger.  I'll give you a hint: former CC says "he is blind, he can't see" (but he has said that of another member who also has vision problems and can drive too) let's try that again; I have a driver's license, I see a doctor regularly (my doctor requires it if I want to continue driving) and yes I may have difficulty seeing the computer screen and I do excellent driving plus I'm about to get a whole lotta vision here pretty soon that may allow me to personally be comfortable with driving in the rain again.

You're going to need to pick a vector and stick with it.

Either you have a "medically documented vision history" or you don't, and if you told me that you were "ok to drive unless it rains" you wouldn't
get a CAP DL, either.  What did you expect to do if you were depended on to drive a vehicle and the weather changed on the return trip?
If you are corrected to within the legal limit to drive a vehicle of the respective COV class, the rest is irrelevant.  If you chose, to bring your
limitations, whatever they may be, to the attention of the CC, and with that knowledge he decided you should not be driving COVs, what did you expect?
Further, unless you are legally blind, not "euphemistically blind", you are not in a protected class.  Having limitations does not give
you ADA protections, it means you're a human being.

Also, the ADA does not trump safety or performance issues.  It indicates "reasonable accommodations", it's not the automatic ban-hammer people
try to use it for.

So even if it did apply, it's irrelevant, but it doesn't apply, so there you go.

Yeah its a catch 22; no I am not legally blind, I was born legally blind but the status changed so that in itself cannot be protected.  I disagree and so do several whom have had been CC in the past; what you mention about what happens if the weather changes on the return trip, that scenario gets brought up and its a realistic scenario.

A) in conditions when its known to likely rain; I don't take the chance
B) in conditions when its less likely to rain but it is long range, I don't take a chance
C) in conditions when it is not going to rain it is suitable therefore I can only drive a COV 2-4 months out of the whole year

As a matter of fact I rarely attend squadron meetings during the winter months for that very same reason; so you can expect that I don't drive the COV.  There is nothing wrong with issuing a CAP DL to someone who understands their own limits and isn't going to take those risks during a set of conditions; I will never put myself in that position unless I absolutely know that I can make a full round trip without any issues to safety or abilities even if that means having a 2nd driver who also a CAP member that has a CAP DL.

These limits are not medically imposed, likewise if someone told me they don't drive at night (a lot of older people don't drive at night); I'd still issue them a CAP DL but if I caught them driving at night, I'd have no problem using the CoC to revoke their COV use privileges.  If there WAS a medical restriction, then I can't see issuing them a CAP DL at all.

There are a lot of CAP members who have far worse vision than I do that don't drive at night and drive a COV

I never said that the ADA doesn't trump safety; as long as I am qualified and can do the tasks without major assistance and that does include safety, meaning if my disability poses a safety risk then accommodations are not required

[lordmonar]

"There are a lot of CAP members who have far worse vision than I do that don't drive at night and drive a COV "

In your unit?

If you can show that then you've got the proof that you were looking for that you are being treated unfairly....which is something you CAN take to your chain of command and/or IG.

But beyond that......really....a CAP DL is what this is about?

I don't really believe that.   As Eclipse says.....there is something behind the scenes here.....don't know if it is you, don't know if it is your former commander, don't know if it is your wing.    Definitely not enough to go on from what you've posted.

[mynetdude]

"There are a lot of CAP members who have far worse vision than I do that don't drive at night and drive a COV "

In your unit? No, actually in my experience (a lot =! majority)

If you can show that then you've got the proof that you were looking for that you are being treated unfairly....which is something you CAN take to your chain of command and/or IG.

But beyond that......really....a CAP DL is what this is about? No, not just the CAP DL, I could care less about it really; I've had a CAP DL before so its non issue there are other issues at hand the CAP DL is just a "line" list of items they want to attack

I don't really believe that.   As Eclipse says.....there is something behind the scenes here.....don't know if it is you, don't know if it is your former commander, don't know if it is your wing.    Definitely not enough to go on from what you've posted. I agree, you are right


Anyway... we'll see what happens; like I said I have other ideas and plans in the works.