Hey look, CAPP 151 is finally getting an update!

Started by dwb, January 11, 2008, 03:36:35 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dragoon

For the Army, AR 600-25, para 1.5.b

Quote1-5. Hand salutes and salutes with arms

a. For instructions on executing the hand salute, see FM 3-21.5, paragraph 4-4 .

b. All Army personnel in uniform are required to salute when they meet and recognize persons entitled to the salute. Salutes will be exchanged between officers (commissioned and warrant) and enlisted personnel, and with personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard), the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service entitled to the salute.

c. The junior person shall salute first. Accompanying the rendering of the hand salute with an appropriate greeting such as, "Good Morning, Sir" or "Good Morning, Ma'am" is encouraged. Personnel will not salute indoors except when reporting to a superior officer.

d. The practice of saluting officers in official vehicles (recognized individually by rank or identifying vehicle plates and/or flags) is considered an appropriate courtesy and will be observed. Salutes are not required to be rendered by or to personnel who are driving or riding in privately owned vehicles, except by gate guards who will render salutes to recognized officers in all vehicles unless duties are of such a nature as to make the salute impractical. When military personnel are acting as drivers of a moving vehicle, they should not initiate a salute.

e. It is customary to salute officers of friendly foreign nations when recognized as such. The commanding general, U.S. European Command; the commanding general, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh U.S. Army; commanding general, U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army; commanding general, U.S. Army, Pacific; and commanding general, U.S. Army, Southern Command, are delegated the authority to establish policies for recognition courtesies prevailing locally for foreign officials. Should inactivation eliminate any of these commands, the authority will pass down to the next level of command. This authority will not be delegated further.

f. The President of the United States, as the commander in chief, will be saluted by Army personnel in uniform.

g. Civilian personnel, to include civilian guards, are not required to render the hand salute to military personnel or other civilian personnel.

h. Military personnel under arms will render the salute prescribed for the weapon with which they are armed, whether or not that weapon ordinarily is prescribed as part of their equipment.

i. Salutes are not required to be rendered or returned when the senior or subordinate, or both are —

(1) In civilian attire.

(2) Engaged in routine work if the salute would interfere.

(3) Carrying articles with both hands so occupied as to make saluting impracticable.

(4) Working as a member of a detail, or engaged in sports or social functions where saluting would present a safety hazard.

(5) In public places such as theaters, churches, and in public conveyances.

(6) In the ranks of a formation.

To be honest, in 22 years of doing this for a living, I was unaware that this reg existed.  But in the Army, saluting is such a part of the culture that is ingrained in you from day one that everyone just accepts it.

CAP has no such indoctrination, and certainly no such all-pervasive culture to back up customs and courtesies.  If we want it to happen, we need to spell it out, explicitly and simply.

MIKE

Mike Johnston

ddelaney103

#42
Looking at the paragraph:

QuoteSenior Members. For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).

Many people are never going to get past the word "optional" to the whole fuzzy "is expected" part.

Tags - MIKE

Matt

Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 29, 2008, 04:55:19 PM
Looking at the paragraph:

QuoteSenior Members. For senior members, the rendering of customs and
courtesies is optional, but is expected when wearing a military-style
uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer).

Many people are never going to get past the word "optional" to the whole fuzzy "is expected" part.

Tags - MIKE

Concurred.
<a href=mailto:mkopp@ncr.cap.gov> Matthew Kopp</a>, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
<a href=https://www.ncrcap.us.org> North Central Region</a>

jimmydeanno

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

biZarre

Oh my goodness!

Minnesota Wing is the poster child for the new CAPP151! 

It's not everyday you get to open a draft of a CAPP and see fellow members (and your's truly) on the cover. 

For the record, this photo dates from 2003, when wing patches were still all the rage on the blues uniform, lest we get too pickey.   Perhaps newer photo's will be used for the final edition. 

Other than that, the re-imaged pamphlet does help bring its points across in a more modern fashion, and in more of a handbook style.
Doug Kilian, Lt Col, CAP
Director of Cadet Programs
Minnesota Wing

masamuel2

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 29, 2008, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: MIKE on January 29, 2008, 04:40:35 PM
AFMAN 36-2203?

Not really.
AFMAN 36-2203
3.6. Exchange of Salutes. The salute is a courteous exchange of greetings, with the junior member
always saluting first. When returning or rendering an individual salute, the head and eyes are turned
toward the Colors or person saluted. When in ranks, the position of attention is maintained unless otherwise
directed. Members of the Armed Forces in uniform exchange salutes under the following conditions:
3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and
between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces. Saluting
outdoors means salutes are exchanged when the persons involved are outside of a building. For example,
if a person is on a porch, a covered sidewalk, a bus stop, a covered or open entryway, or a reviewing
stand, the salute will be exchanged with a person on the sidewalk outside of the structure or with
a person approaching or in the same structure. This applies both on and off military installations. The
junior member should initiate the salute in time to allow the senior officer to return it. To prescribe an
exact distance for all circumstances is not practical, but good judgment indicates when salutes should
be exchanged. A superior carrying articles in both hands need not return the salute, but he or she
should nod in return or verbally acknowledge the salute. If the junior member is carrying articles in
both hands, verbal greetings should be exchanged. Also, use these procedures when greeting an
officer of a friendly foreign nation.
3.6.2. Indoors, except for formal reporting, salutes are not rendered.
...
3.6.6. Exchange of salutes between military pedestrians (including gate sentries) and officers in moving
military vehicles is not mandatory. However, when officer passengers are readily identifiable (for
example, officers in appropriately marked vehicles), the salute must be rendered.
3.6.7. Civilians may be saluted by persons in uniform. The President of the United States, as Commander
in Chief of the Armed Forces, is always accorded the honor of a salute. Also, if the exchange
of salutes is otherwise appropriate, it is customary for military members in civilian clothes to
exchange salutes upon recognition.
...
3.6.10. Any airman, NCO, or officer recognizing a need to salute or a need to return one may do so
anywhere at any time.

jimmydeanno

That's not really what I was looking for.

In the example that ddelaney gave - the Army is specifically stating "salutes are required..."

In the AFM it is explaining how to salute in certain situations.  It is explaining how the custom is executed.

But even if interpreted as a "saluting is required" section, it only covers the salute. 

My point being is that I think that the request to make the CAP pamphlet more authoritative in its wording is another case of trying to be more military than the military.  Even in the paragraphs above there are a lot of "should" and "is not mandatory" (which translates to 'optional'), and 'mays.'

I don't think that a failure in local leadership should require that we make every single thing in CAP 'illegal' should someone not fully understand.  CAP has plenty of places where C&C is part of the indoctrination.  Local leadership just chooses to ignore those areas (level 1 training has a specific section on C&C that is supposed to be conducted in a hands on method, the Cadet Great Start Program, TLC has C&C & D&C, etc).

IMO, those who join CAP choose to act as adults and WILL keep reading past the 'optional' part and read the expectation, those who don't soon find their way out of the organization anyway.  I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

ddelaney103

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 30, 2008, 11:00:36 PM
That's not really what I was looking for.

In the example that ddelaney gave - the Army is specifically stating "salutes are required..."

In the AFM it is explaining how to salute in certain situations.  It is explaining how the custom is executed.

But even if interpreted as a "saluting is required" section, it only covers the salute. 

My point being is that I think that the request to make the CAP pamphlet more authoritative in its wording is another case of trying to be more military than the military.  Even in the paragraphs above there are a lot of "should" and "is not mandatory" (which translates to 'optional'), and 'mays.'

I don't think that a failure in local leadership should require that we make every single thing in CAP 'illegal' should someone not fully understand.  CAP has plenty of places where C&C is part of the indoctrination.  Local leadership just chooses to ignore those areas (level 1 training has a specific section on C&C that is supposed to be conducted in a hands on method, the Cadet Great Start Program, TLC has C&C & D&C, etc).

IMO, those who join CAP choose to act as adults and WILL keep reading past the 'optional' part and read the expectation, those who don't soon find their way out of the organization anyway.  I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.


You're confusing me with Dragoon, but I'll take a shot at this.

The AFMAN is pretty clear on the basics:

Quote3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

It's not "expected" or "optional" here.

davedove

Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 30, 2008, 11:20:44 PM
You're confusing me with Dragoon, but I'll take a shot at this.

The AFMAN is pretty clear on the basics:

Quote3.6.1. Outdoors, salutes are exchanged upon recognition between officers and warrant officers and between officers or warrant officers and cadets or enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

It's not "expected" or "optional" here.

Exactly, it does not say "Salutes should be" or "Salutes may be".  It says "Salutes ARE".

Just because the word "mandatory" is not there does not mean it is optional.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

BuckeyeDEJ

I don't understand why CAP is reinventing the wheel here.

There's AFMAN 36-2203, which outlines all this stuff with great detail and aplomb. (And with a different cover, a previous iteration of that manual was the CAP Leadership Laboratory Manual. What ever happened to that...?)

And the Air Force apparently has a "cheat-sheet" pamphlet outlining the stuff CAPP 151 purports to do.

Why does CAP have to duplicate efforts here?

It's a waste of money, of paper and of time that could be used for bigger, better things. Is it because we want to dumb it all down for the less military-inclined among us? Or to placate CPPT-paranoid seniors among us? Or is this a make-work assignment handed to someone at NHQ?

Military traditions are just that — and either we follow them, or we don't, period. We can't pick and choose ("The Air Force does it like this, but we don't do that in CAP" seldom makes sense in this context), lest we be unprofessional and the continued target of Air Force scorn.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Dragoon

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 05, 2008, 12:47:27 AM
I don't understand why CAP is reinventing the wheel here.

There's AFMAN 36-2203, which outlines all this stuff with great detail and aplomb. (And with a different cover, a previous iteration of that manual was the CAP Leadership Laboratory Manual. What ever happened to that...?)

And the Air Force apparently has a "cheat-sheet" pamphlet outlining the stuff CAPP 151 purports to do.

Why does CAP have to duplicate efforts here?

It's a waste of money, of paper and of time that could be used for bigger, better things. Is it because we want to dumb it all down for the less military-inclined among us? Or to placate CPPT-paranoid seniors among us? Or is this a make-work assignment handed to someone at NHQ?

Military traditions are just that — and either we follow them, or we don't, period. We can't pick and choose ("The Air Force does it like this, but we don't do that in CAP" seldom makes sense in this context), lest we be unprofessional and the continued target of Air Force scorn.

Well, at the very least we do need a supplement addressing CAP specific stuff like golf shirts (no visible rank), blazers and the like.  Also dealing with the fact that often "the Commander" is one of the lower ranked guys in the unit!

But it seems that CAP is going a bit further, and defining some customs as completely optional.  There is some precedent for this - CGAUX doesn't salute at all, last time I checked.

But it seems to be a big change of CAP. I hope it's on purpose, and not just poor word smithing.

BuckeyeDEJ

Quote from: Dragoon on February 05, 2008, 04:31:39 PM
...Also dealing with the fact that often "the Commander" is one of the lower ranked guys in the unit!

Lower grade salutes higher grade, but higher grade defers to the lower grade's command authority. This situation exists in the Air Force, also -- when a base commander's a bird colonel and there are generals on base. It's covered in regs, just not with that specificity.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Dragoon

Not quite the same - the generals on a base don't work for the base commander.  He's just the manager of the hotel they stay in.

And if push comes to shove, my guess is that the general gets his way on base-related issues he really cares about.

BuckeyeDEJ

When authority is given to someone junior, deference for responsibility is given to the junior member but deference to rank and grade is always given to the senior.

For whatever reason, in CAP this gets twisted around because people recognize the position of authority and blow off the rank and grade -- possibly because in civilian life, we defer to people by their responsibility, and there's no rank/grade structure.

As Dragoon might say, a base commander may be the manager of the hotel, but he's in charge nonetheless. Just the same as a general's pilot is in charge of his passengers -- including the higher-ranking personnel -- he still salutes the general just the same. By that same logic, if I have a lieutenant colonel in my squadron who wants to throw weight around, I would defer to the person of higher grade, never mind that I'm on the hook for command decisions.

I salute a lieutenant colonel because he or she is a light colonel, regardless of whether that officer is in my unit. Period.

I'm sure there is deference to the generals, but the rules set by the base commander -- who has responsibility and authority -- still stick.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Dragoon

But the base commander has very limited authority.  He can decide on where to put parking spots, where to build the bolling alley, what kind of security goes around the base, etc.

But he cannot direct the operational employment or training of tenant units, simply because "it's his base".  Those Generals, or Colonels do whatever they want to do with their units.

I gar-un-tee that if the base commander is outranked by unit commanders on the base, that those unit commanders in no way, shape or form "work for him."  As long as they show their ID cards at the gate and don't park in the no-parking zones, they can do whatever the heck they like.


And therefore, the base commander analogy doesn't really match up to CAP.  Because in CAP, the squadron commander DOES direct the actions of his members.  Or at least his supposed to.  :-)


Is there any  organization in America, besides CAP where it is mandatory to render courtesies like saluting, priority seating, terms like "sir" etc.,  to folks who work FOR you.  I can't think of any.

In corporate boardrooms around American, I really doubt the CEO stands when the CFO enters the room.  It's most likely the other way round.  Regardless of the experience and training of the CFO.

It simply makes no sense to put a guy in charge and then force him to defer to his subordinates.   He's the man (or woman) - and he deserves the deference

Ned

OK, if you don't like the "base commander / tenant unit cc" analogy, how about this one:

Before Uncle Sam let me have my very own MP company, I spent a wonderful tour as an Army Headquarters Detachment (HHD) commander for the battalion.  I was a young captain, and of course the battalion cc was a LTC.  I had the full responsibilities of command (art 15 authority, property book responsibility, maintained a unitl METL, underwent an external ARTEP, OERs for junior officers, etc). but in my unit were also at least four officers who outranked me. (CC, XO, S3 were all field grades, and IIRC the S4 was a senior captain.)

Along with full command authority, the assignment also came with the kinds of conflicts and frustration you have described.  During unit training meetings, the crew stood up when I came into the room, but we all stood up if the BC came in. 


I'm not suggesting that the Army / CAP parallel is particularly close ; only that folks commanding units that have higher ranked personnel assigned happens every single day and is not all that unusual.

FWIW.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy

JoeTomasone


My read on this is that they are trying to nudge the Pamphlet closer to reality - that is, that many members don't care about the military affiliation and customs.   I get the sense that a large majority of our members would ditch the customs, courtesies, and uniform altogether as long as they got to fly/ground pound/etc.   

If you made jeans and t-shirts an optional uniform, I wonder how many members would have all their uniforms up on Ebay the next day - and how many buyers there would be.

Someone in another thread made a statement that is seemingly appropriate: 

"This isn't the CAP you grew up in as a Cadet". 

From my perspective, we should be as USAF-like as possible for a volunteer organization if we are to be its Auxiliary; and we should resist efforts to water this down.    Anyone who wants to be in a more informal organization can easily find a home in the Boy/Girl Scouts, Red Cross, or elsewhere; there's no need to informalize CAP.


Dragoon

Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2008, 04:31:04 PM
OK, if you don't like the "base commander / tenant unit cc" analogy, how about this one:

Before Uncle Sam let me have my very own MP company, I spent a wonderful tour as an Army Headquarters Detachment (HHD) commander for the battalion.  I was a young captain, and of course the battalion cc was a LTC.  I had the full responsibilities of command (art 15 authority, property book responsibility, maintained a unitl METL, underwent an external ARTEP, OERs for junior officers, etc). but in my unit were also at least four officers who outranked me. (CC, XO, S3 were all field grades, and IIRC the S4 was a senior captain.)

Along with full command authority, the assignment also came with the kinds of conflicts and frustration you have described.  During unit training meetings, the crew stood up when I came into the room, but we all stood up if the BC came in. 


I'm not suggesting that the Army / CAP parallel is particularly close ; only that folks commanding units that have higher ranked personnel assigned happens every single day and is not all that unusual.

FWIW.

Ned Lee
Retired Army Guy


That's a much better analogy, Ned,  and I think it supports my point.  Because there's a big difference between having higher ranking guys in your unit, and actually commanding those guys.

Being an HHD/HHC/HHT( Headquarters and Headquarters Troop)  commander is a tough job for the all reasons you mention.  The "hotel manager" comment I used earlier was made by my first HHC commander to the battalion staff to describe his role.  He was responsible for the infrastructure of the HQ, but not for its real missions (planning and executing operations).  And every morning, 90% of his people went off to work for someone else (the S1 through S4) who didn't work for him.  (Given your demeanor, I'll bet you were pretty effective at handling this diplomatically - it would have torqued me off to no end).

For example:  As a 1st Lt, I was a squadron S-1 and even though he outranked me, the HHT commander couldn't touch me.  Sure, I was in his troop, but I worked for the Lt Col.  Now my troopers had to answer to two masters - they worked for me most days, and for him occasionally (like formations and the like).  But the one time the HHT commander tried to direct our actions as an S1 section, it only took a quick visit with the XO to squash it.  As long as I didn't violate UCMJ, that "commander" didn't "command" me.  And for the field grades, he didn't even have UCMJ authority!

I've never seen an HHD/HHC/HHT commander exert command authority over any field grade in his outfit.  The field grades most certainly weren't on his staff.  He did not evaluate, direct or discipline them.   He was not responsible for their job performance.   He DID try to get them to do PT tests on time and attend mandatory training, but his success in those endeavers depended on how much support the Bn Cdr gave him.  Effectively, he provided a home for higher ranking officers - but those officers don't work for him.  (it's not like you had a major as your support platoon leader).

But a squadron commander in CAP would have Lt Cols on his personal staff working for him.  He needs to direct, council and perhaps discipline them, not just "host" them like an HHC commander does.    That's an entirely different kettle o'fish.  And one with little parallel in the real world.


I met the man with the hardest job in the Army - Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrisson

BuckeyeDEJ

OK, the base commander analogy didn't work, you're right, Dragoon. But maybe the pilot-in-command analogy works. The PIC's in charge, no matter who's aboard. The PIC will still render proper courtesy to, say, a general or the President, but the senior official will defer authority to the PIC because it's his plane.

In CAP, it's my unit, but if I have a light colonel in it, he gets a salute from me and he'd better understand it's my squadron and he follows policy I set down.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 03, 2008, 06:05:48 PMFrom my perspective, we should be as USAF-like as possible for a volunteer organization if we are to be its Auxiliary; and we should resist efforts to water this down.    Anyone who wants to be in a more informal organization can easily find a home in the Boy/Girl Scouts, Red Cross, or elsewhere; there's no need to informalize CAP.

AMEN! If you wear the Air Force's uniform, you conduct yourself accordingly. Rank and grade stand for something, as well as position of authority. Let common sense dictate, but within that framework. Period. End of message.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.