Following orders

[falcon00]

Is there a regulation some where that outlines permissible situations where orders of higher authority can be ignored? In the real military it's anything that's illegal or immoral or something like that. 

[RiverAux]

At its most basic CAP members can ignore any order they want if they're willing to be kicked out of CAP for it.  What you're really asking is whether there are situations where they can ignore an order in CAP and get away with it.  There probably is some sort of generic regulation that would cover it, but its all going to be in the eye of the beholder.   

[falcon00]

I'm dealing with a situation where I'm trying to keep someone from getting 2Bed by showing that the orders this individual were given were done in:
1. Bad faith
2. Contrary to this persons best interest.

[lordmonar]

Yes and no.

As a CAP member you can be kicked out for not following orders.

Those orders have to fall with in the guideline of the regulations and local laws.

If the order was not against the regulations or local laws....then it was what we call in the military a legal order.
If the person ignored it...then the commander has grounds to 2b him.

The member has the right to apeal to the wing commander (or higher) who will determine if the facts of the case have merit and if 2bing the member is in fact the appropriate action.

Specifically.....I ask....how is an order given in "bad faith"  and as for being "contrary to this persons best interest."  That is a non-starter.  90% of our regulations are not in the member's best interest.....they are in the interest of the mission and the corporation.   So a if I were to order my subordinate to be someplace as a specific time....and they can't due to say work....then I would, technically, have grounds to 2b them.   Now....that 2b would never stand up to an appeals.....but we write many of regs to use as leverage when we need them.

The UCMJ is full of articles that are almost never ever invoked....but are there if the commander needs them.

[Eclipse]

Some points in regards to these situations.

If you are not involved, you should stay out of it - an IG normally cannot act on "something you heard", even if a complaint is filed, if you are not involved, you will not be consulted.  Helping a friend is admirable, but I've seen situations where the involved parties are all "working it out" or
"fine with it", where outsiders get involved, and the result is additional loss of membership, fractured units, etc., etc.

Poor leadership is not actionable, beyond the next higher HQ taking subjective corrective action.

Both the complaint process and the termination process are not to be taken lightly and have very specific rules, thresholds and deadlines.
Most of the actions I've seen, on both sides, that fail, do so because someone in the process does not follow protocol or procedure and the
complaint is tossed with consideration, or the 2b sustained.

There's very little that the average CAP CC would care to direct a member to do which would not be sustainable in a 2b, and in most cases
a CC will consult at least the next higher HQ, if not also CAP/JAG,  before processing the termination (I always did) to insure the 2b rises to the level
and is processed properly.

Beyond something we'd all see as blatantly exceeding authority, he-said / she-said "He's touching my stuff" situations where a 2b is involved,
rarely come out in the member's favor, if it gets that far.

Also, this ↓↓↓↓↓↓

Specifically.....I ask....how is an order given in "bad faith"  and as for being "contrary to this persons best interest."  That is a non-starter.  90% of our regulations are not in the member's best interest.....they are in the interest of the mission and the corporation.   So a if I were to order my subordinate to be someplace as a specific time....and they can't due to say work....then I would, technically, have grounds to 2b them.   Now....that 2b would never stand up to an appeals.....but we write many of regs to use as leverage when we need them.

[Private Investigator]

falconoo, what are you fishing for?

Cadets always and Senior Members too, get all worked up and 98% of the time it is nothing or a misunderstanding. What exactly is the problem?

Thank you in advance ...

[falcon00]

I say bad faith because the order was given not because it was the correct thing to do but due to somebody's personal power trip. "I'm in charge do what I say." Regardless of the fact that this individual has little to no experience or education in the matters in question. Another example. Let's say a cadet is trying to follow the cadet oath and participate actively but his active participation is blocked despite going through the proper channels. This in turn prevents him from promoting properly and gaining  the tangible benefits of CAP (higher grade on enlistment, academy appointments, ROTC scholarships).  That to me seems like it's AGAINST mission.

"Poor leadership is not actionable". With the number of individuals we have that in the real world would never achieve anything, how is this statement possible?

[falcon00]

I can't say too much for obvious reasons but we're WAY WAY beyond nothing. We're talking epic violations of 52-16 and in some cases 52-10. Bizarrely I'm trying to defend someone AGAINST people violating those regulations. This is one upside down organization...

[AngelWings]

Eclipse and lordmonar have given you solid and well thought out advice based on experience.

Can you give us any specifics on what has happened? I cannot tell if it was "My frand iz gettin 2B'd cuz the commandah doeznt like da fact he mezzd up hiz coffee ordah zo badlie an wastd da commandahs mulah" or "My friend is in a situation where his commander ordered him to do something outrageous, including but not limited to: speeding, paying for squadron bills, and lying in the sake of the commanders benefit and the orders risked both CAP resources and people."

Details can allow us to help guide you better in advising your friend. However, as previously stated, do not get involved in any way more than talking to your friend and your friend only. Make sure that he doesn't even talk about what you've said.

EDIT: any specific cases that you can say to us without using examples? How about, point out a few areas in 52-16 and 52-10 that could have been violated?

[Eclipse]

I say bad faith because the order was given not because it was the correct thing to do but due to somebody's personal power trip. "I'm in charge do what I say."

That's how it works, not just in CAP, but school, work, and even at home.

Regardless of the fact that this individual has little to no experience or education in the matters in question. Another example. Let's say a cadet is trying to follow the cadet oath and participate actively but his active participation is blocked despite going through the proper channels. This in turn prevents him from promoting properly and gaining  the tangible benefits of CAP (higher grade on enlistment, academy appointments, ROTC scholarships).  That to me seems like it's AGAINST mission.

This sounds like a typical situation in CAP, and the responses escalate to the point that someone is out.  No one utilizing "proper channels" is going to
be denied opportunities in CAP, however with that said, CAP is an >objective< program, and at some point you either "do it" or "don't do it", and
if yo don't do it, all the excuses and "reasons" won't matter much.

"Poor leadership is not actionable". With the number of individuals we have that in the real world would never achieve anything, how is this statement possible?

In the same way that anyone in a position of authority has a fair amount of subjective authority, and making bad decisions, absent the breaking of a reg, or willful negligence, simply comes down to "command prerogative", which can't be usurped too much or too often before it is erased.

Bad decisions can always be appealed to the next higher HQ, and that's usually the way reasonable people handle it, the problem is that
due to a lot of people who have their "drama gene" fully engaged, things are handled at 10 when they are really a 3.  When the conversations
start involving "you can't make me", in fact usually you can, and things get worse from there.

There's a lot of people in CAP who enjoy the benefits of the paramilitary structure, until it's their time to SUAC.

[Eclipse]

Unless you can give us specifics, there's no way we can give you any answer that's useful, and even if you do,
most of us will know it'll only be 1 of the 3 sides.

We're talking epic violations of 52-16 and in some cases 52-10.

I seriously doubt it.

[falcon00]

I have to be super careful but here is a short list:
52-16 Chapt 4 para 3 section B
Chpt 4 para 4 section A
52-10 was just pretty much trampled

I've dealt with the 52-10 stuff but still dealing with the fallout.

So are we really saying right now that if a commander does stuff that is detrimental to my post CAP career that that is TOTALLY ok?

[Eclipse]

That doesn't help - citing a reg doesn't mean it was violated.

So are we really saying right now that if a commander does stuff that is detrimental to my post CAP career that that is TOTALLY ok?

No, but that's not what you are saying, either, because good luck drawing the line between an adverse CAP action and the possibilty of a 
missed opportunity in another organization.  The opportunities that CAP can afford in regards to the military, ROTC, or other outside organizations
require the beneficiary be in good standing with CAP.   If you aren't, even if you don't agree with why you aren't, then those benefits would not
be open to you.

So we've gone from "a friend" to "me" in about 10 posts?

[falcon00]

"I seriously doubt it."

Dude really? Kids were sexually harassed, physically assaulted, and stalked to the point one girl took out a TRO against someone. What was done? Nothing substantial till I showed up. Now here I am again. Once more unto the breach dear friends. I'm sorry I can't provide specific examples but I can't take the risk of tipping my defense to the prosecution.

[falcon00]

So we've gone from "a friend" to "me" in about 10 posts?

Well I wasn't the one that used the term "friend" and I'm using the generic "me".

[AngelWings]

And there we go, now you've given us SOMETHING we can give you advice on.

I'll leave it to the more experienced to give you advice. All of us here deal with posts with people who edge on the outskirts of details and do not tell us what we need to know to give them advice. Then they post back things like "problem resolved", "no big deal", etc.

I suggest PM'ing a few people here for advice rather than posting, and you have to realize that the way you started out was pretty much the same way all of the 'my commander hatez meh gertz nao cuz shez mean and thinkz im uglie" posts start out. Giving us details is very important in making us able to help you.

[Eclipse]

"I seriously doubt it."

Dude really? Kids were sexually harassed, physically assaulted, and stalked to the point one girl took out a TRO against someone. What was done? Nothing substantial till I showed up. Now here I am again. Once more unto the breach dear friends. I'm sorry I can't provide specific examples but I can't take the risk of tipping my defense to the prosecution.

I seriously doubt it.  You have no idea how many times we have heard that, here and in real life.  At least in the cases I've had to deal
with, they are never close in reality to the characterization.

Assuming the first part is even remotely true, then here is not where you should be.  There are very specific rules for reporting
harassment, and they need to be immediately and directly followed.

If they were followed, then the process is the process, and the results and remediation may well be NOYB.  If they weren't followed, and this is after the fact, the clock is, or was ticking, though I don't believe there is any limitation on harassment complaints.  A direct call to the Wing CC should be made immediately by the member's commander, or you, if the CC is the issue.  If Wing isn't giving you satisfaction, the next call is Region, and if you don't like their answer, NHQ.  I am a staunch advocate of the chain of command, but in regards to issues of abuse or harassment, the rules are a little different, and so should our reaction.

CAP's internal complaint process does not limit a member's legal right to accuse someone criminally or civilly, which is exactly what I would look to
doing if I was the parent of someone harassed or abused in CAP. At that point the regs become secondary at best for the alleged "victim" and mom and dad.

We can try to help at the generalization level, but being indignant regarding our doubts won't help anyone.  You have no credibility of reputation here,
and in 10 posts you've gone from asking when it was ok to disobey an order, to the accusation that a serious abuse allegation was either ignored or
swept under the rug.

[EMT-83]

If you have knowledge that those events actually occurred, report them. Go gray areas, no prolonged discussion on an Internet forum, report them.

If the members of this forum (including myself) have serious doubts that these events actually occurred as you described, it's because we've heard almost identical stories before.

I am assuming you are a cadet. If so, it is not your responsibility to get involved or "tip your defense to the prosecution".  There are clearly defined processes; follow them.

[AngelWings]

If you have knowledge that those events actually occurred, report them. Go gray areas, no prolonged discussion on an Internet forum, report them.

If the members of this forum (including myself) have serious doubts that these events actually occurred as you described, it's because we've heard almost identical stories before.

I am assuming you are a cadet. If so, it is not your responsibility to get involved or "tip your defense to the prosecution".  There are clearly defined processes; follow them.

+100

This post sums up all we can do for you and say to you at this point. I'm a cadet myself and have learned what he said to be true before the hard and rather long and and annoying way.

[falcon00]

I'm sorry when a client comes to me and says, "Excuse me. This software your company makes doesn't quite work properly can you please help me?", my first response isn't, "NAHHHHH!! You're making that up!! Go on back to your desk and quit bothering me." I don't ask them for their resume or their ID badge. I take them at their word and provide them with the technical assistance that they were asking for. I'm sorry that's just me.

Additionally, you guys know the rules as well as I do about talking about this stuff, or maybe you don't if you've never had to file an IG investigation before. Quite frankly I'm getting mixed messages on what I can and can't talk about. However, I can talk a little bit about the 52-10 issues because they are a matter of record. Short form, I managed to get the offender 2Bed on a technicality. His commander took a little more doing but I got him gone too BUT not by official processes but through political pressure. 

Now, normally when stuff like this happens in the real AF the ENTIRE chain of command is shown the door. That didn't happen. Inexplicably certain people are still in charge! Which leads us to the nonsense of today.

You're going to also have to excuse me but in my profession you can't be stupid and be in charge. Obviously that's not the case in CAP. All we ask of our SMs is that they do not be pedophiles. There is no education requirement, there is no aptitude or intelligence test or any of the other things real AF officers have to go through. There HAS to be a check on these people and if nobody else is going to do it I am.

Now, we've gotten pretty far afield from my original question. I have 35-3 sitting open in front of me. It's a whopping 12 page regulation on a matter that is pretty serious. My arguments in these proceedings will be:
1. You can't trust someone with a history of lying on the record.
2. Orders, given in contravention of existing regulations aren't valid.

Can I or can't I argue that and make it stick?