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?

[Eclipse]

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.

What you do is ask for very specific details - information you cannot provide here if you value your membership.
If you tell a company their product doesn't work, then aren't allowed to tell them how or why, you'll get the same response.

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. 

They aren't public record.

Now, normally when stuff like this happens in the real AF the ENTIRE chain of command is shown the door.

No they aren't, and certainly not without a lengthy due-process.

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.

Then you must not work in the private sector, military, government, or any other organized structure.

I'm sure we will all sleep better this evening knowing you are taking care of this for us.

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?

1. Agree in principle, making that argument in a situation where the person accused of lying obviously hasn't "gone away" isn't going to be easy,
since they likely have higher HQ support.

2. You can't make that as a blanket statement, especially without knowing which ones you're talking about.
There are any number of situations where a regulation might need to be disregarded or violated because of a life-safety or property issue.
These situations have to be considered on a per-case basis.

[falcon00]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/acad-m29.shtml

Due processed RIGHT out the door.

[Eclipse]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/acad-m29.shtml

Due processed RIGHT out the door.

Relevance?  One scandal does not a "normally" make.

It's also unfortunate that your rhetoric is amping up the less we seem to be outraged.  You've gone from a question about directives to
an indictment of the entire chain and system, with an insinuation that only you are willing to fix it.

Welcome to CAPTalk.

[lordmonar]

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?

All non-starters.

The order may be frivilous....it may be give just because "I'm in charge".....but if it did not violate regulations or local laws it was a legal order and you are bound by your oath to follow it.

forget education, experince or any of that....it is a basic concept.....either the individual had the authority to make the order or he did not.    18 year old high school grad who is the commander has the authority to make a lot of orders....because he has been appointed to the position.   End of story.

As for how to properly protest an order you may have doubts about.......chain of command.  Your flight commander tells you to do something you think is wrong....go to the C/CC....if you don't like that go to the CC....if you don't like his answer go to the group command, wing commander, regional commander, national commander....contact the IG.

What you can't do.....is simply ignore the order.

[lordmonar]

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?

If you have to be "super careful" then you should not be here at all.

Integrity First.

[falcon00]

"but if it did not violate regulations"

And that's key because it DID. I even had to sic the wing COS on the person once. This person's lack of understanding of cadet regulations is ASTOUNDING.

So we're at the wing level now. I was just going walk in and put the place on blast but after this discussion what it's sounding like that everything out of my mouth is going to be met with a big fat "so what".

[Eclipse]

What's the wing COS going to do?  They aren't in command authority over anyone but the wing staff.

Don't confuse lack of facts and veracity with "so what"?

[falcon00]

Trust me, the wing COS completely put the smack down. And now this has to be my last post as it appears that no matter my caution with vagueness and gender neutral pronouns, apparently I've been busted.

[Eclipse]

^ We keep trying to get people to understand how small CAP is, and that  there's no such thing as anonymity  on the internet, especially here,
but no one listens.

Just the raising of the issue of a harassment complaint in recent memory automatically eliminates or highlights "x" number of wings.  Fill in a few more details and, "Bob's your uncle."   Not to mention there are members of the board and other national staffers, and these complaints and related situations are simply not that common.

There is no way to address it here past the general and quoting the process.

Your thread followed the pattern - abstract question about specific topic in regards to authority by a brand new poster, which evolved into
indictments of the entire system in 10 posts.

You could be 100% correct, and a champion of righteousness, a disgruntled former member looking to make hay, or someone on the sidelines
with 1/2 the story, there is simply no way to know.  And even if you provided full details, it's only one side of the 3-sided story, and in those
threads, no matter the response, the allegations amp up with every subsequent response.

It's simply impossible for people who value their memberships, and the privacy of those involved (and accused) to get anywhere with
1/4 a story based on something which is subjective in all cases.

[Private Investigator]

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.

Was anyone arrested? Being a retired policeman with 30 + years of service, when I was asked to be an IG I told the Boss I would do it but if a crime was committed people will go to jail immediately. Now if someone was physically assualted, was somebody arrested or a police report filed? Now is the TRO regarding a member of the same Squadron? Now that has to be resolved, NOW and not just ASAP.

You might not believe this but I think most of us has heard a lot of stories over the years. Now over the years some CAP members have gone to prison others had lengthy stays in jail. The Texas Cadets murder case from 1995 is one sad story. The downside to Cadet Programs is the whole boyfriend/girlfriend dynamic. Dating for teenagers is not a good ideal. As soon as a breakup occurs the next thing you know one of them wants the other to be 2B.

[abdsp51]

Looking at the sections cited, sounds like someone is not getting their way.

[Eclipse]

Looking at the sections cited, sounds like someone is not getting their way.

I'd say it's at least likely - tales of 2b's and "I'm the only one to fix this..." etc, etc., and then
the core of the supposed complaint is issues with curriculum content and weekend activities.

I'd put a venti on the counter that this started as someone's opinion of an activity or
what meetings should be like, maybe a cadet, and then escalated from there when the
the ideas were not well-received. 

BTDT, it can get ugly, especially when or if people get the idea that the complaint process
can be wielded as a management tool, we've even seen that at the National level.

I've had to deal with a few normally A-Team members who got really bunched when they were told "no",
and would not knock it off.  This can be a real problem with higher-speed cadets, especially Phase IV,
who haven't heard "no" much, sometimes at home, either. 

52-16 Chapt 4 para 3 section B
b. Special Weekend Activities.  Once per month, on average, every community-based cadet
unit should offer its cadets an opportunity to participate in at least one special event beyond the weekly
meeting. Events conducted with a neighboring unit or higher headquarters satisfy this requirement. See
Figure 4-3 for suggestions on how to meet this goal without overwhelming local resources.

Chapt 4 para 4 section A
a. Weekly Squadron Meetings.
(1) Content Requirements. Commanders should program their unit's weekly meetings
such that cadets receive the training content outlined in Figure 4-2. The unit may deviate from those
guidelines if holidays, inclement weather, special activities, or the like interfere with the unit's
normal schedule.

(2) The Cadet Syllabus. Unit meetings should be planned well and sequenced such that
the activities of one meeting lay a foundation for the activities of succeeding meetings, whenever
possible. See the  Cadet Programs Resource & Planning Guide  at  capmembers.com/library for a
suggested plan.

(3) Scheduling Requirements. Approximately one week before each weekly  unit
meeting, the commander should ensure that a detailed schedule is developed, coordinated among the
staff,  and published. This schedule should identify what the unit aims to accomplish during its next
meeting. No particular format is mandated, but CAPP 52-15,  Cadet Staff Handbook,  includes a
suggested template.

Or it could be a 100% legit, "worst-case scenario", but there's simply no way to discuss it
intelligently in an open forum.

[docbiochem33]

Cadets and Senior Members can refuse an order under certain circumstances, but they are limited in scope.

No Commander, Deputy Commander, etc. can make a member violate his or her personal beliefs in the areas of morality or religion.  These situations do come up when a person has a moral or religious objection to performing certain tasks.  A member cannot all of a sudden have an objection, but they must be something that is part of a faith or moral reasoning. 

This would be a situation that a friend of mine, "Joe,"  went through.  He was forced to sit in the Character Development courses with a Chaplain that would spend 15 minutes on the class and then another 30 minutes as to why they should all attend his church.  He objected to this on the grounds that he did not believe it was right to tell him where to go to church and that he would also be in hell for attending the church he did.  As a cadet officer, "Joe" knew this to be wrong.  He had raised questions about it and the commander basically told him he would attend the classes because he had to be an example to other cadets.  He became the example about a month or so after this conversation with the commander and walked out of the Moral Leadership class.  Funny part was 5 cadets followed and nothing was done because even the Group CC said it had crossed the line when they were forced to listen about a church.

I also remember a situation where a member was 2b'd in paper but nothing was sent in to NHQ.  The senior members running an activity were upset that some of the cadets were a little late to a formation at a weekend activity because they were talking with members of a local National Guard unit that was actually feeding them.  As punishment the seniors decided that the cadets were going to spend about 2 hours outside performing a search as part of the SAR training they were doing. 

This amount of training would have been okay with many of the cadets who were prepared, but not for some as they were in fall/spring jackets and it had decided to snow the night before. (Great living in a snow belt above the 45th parallel since it will snow and no one plans on it.)  When the member voiced concerns the seniors through him out and then told him to sign out and sit at the training for the rest of the weekend so that he could take cadets home.  They even had this member clean areas and take out trash.

Was the member right in voicing concerns and telling the seniors leading the activity that sending people out in inappropriate clothing was wrong?  Yes.  As seniors they were responsible for the safety of the cadets and seniors under their charge.  The member also had the responsibility to report this as soon as possible, but they did not.

The member was given a 2b for nit signing out of the activity, but it was not sent in to National HQ.  I think there are several reasons for this:

1.  You cannot make cadets participate in something that is unsafe.  Sending people out in clothing not meant for the climate is unsafe and CAP could have been held responsible.

2.  If this would have been investigated properly, the wing wold have found a lot of problems with the unit and its spending practices.

3.  Making a member clean after the issue and after you told them to sign out mutes the idea that you wanted them to not participate.  You are having them clean the mission base area means they are participating.

4.  Telling a member that he/ she cannot leave because you want them to drive cadets home is also another issue.  If you fail to let him leave then you are looking at legal issues.  It may be bad that the member is leaving and taking about half the cadets with him, but that is the choice the seniors made.

It is always a sticky situation when people give orders and you are unsure what to do.  I say this, "If it is way out there in nature, don't do it."  If it is questionable and does not break the law, follow the order, document everything about the order, and then contact someone higher up for guidance.  What may seem questionable may not be.  If the order is questionable, then higher levels of command can do something.

Just a few thoughts and my opinion.

[Eclipse]

This would be a situation that a friend of mine, "Joe,"  went through.  He was forced to sit in the Character Development courses with a Chaplain that would spend 15 minutes on the class and then another 30 minutes as to why they should all attend his church.  He objected to this on the grounds that he did not believe it was right to tell him where to go to church and that he would also be in hell for attending the church he did.  As a cadet officer, "Joe" knew this to be wrong.  He had raised questions about it and the commander basically told him he would attend the classes because he had to be an example to other cadets.  He became the example about a month or so after this conversation with the commander and walked out of the Moral Leadership class.  Funny part was 5 cadets followed and nothing was done because even the Group CC said it had crossed the line when they were forced to listen about a church.

The Chaplain was violating CAP regs and policy in this regard and should have been disciplined himself.
This would be grounds for a legit IG complaint if the CC will not correct it.

The Group CC should have done more then comment.  This person should be an Ex-Chaplain.

I also remember a situation where a member was 2b'd in paper but nothing was sent in to NHQ.

Then he was not 2b'ed, your comments as to why it would not have been sustained are correct.  However, there are situations where a member
may be too deeply involved to simply leave, and there may well be civil ramifications if they just scram.

ES is going to be the place this would happen most, since at some point you accept responsibility for a duty and it involves life-safety - if you disobey a
proper directive, and someone is injured or dies, you could well be liable.  BTDT.

The CP would be the other.  If you accept loco-parentis on cadets, and then decide to simply abandon them, it could be the same deal.

There are no "legal issues", external to CAP, when a commander tells someone to stay and they don't like it.  Unless they are being physically
restrained (or keys not returned, etc.), people stay voluntarily, happy or not.  There's no law that restricts people from not being happy.
If you go to an activity in a group via COV or airplane, and decide mid-way you want to go home "because", CAP is under no obligation to
provide you means to do so, especially if it disrupts the activity.

Professional courtesy and compassion would, but it's not required, legally or otherwise.

[docbiochem33]

These events occurred many many moons ago.  The members in question did report them, but not much was really done.

With the cadet who left the Moral Leadership class, the Group Commander made it clear the if the Chaplain left his teaching plan and went into information about his church then members had a right to leave since it had nothing to do with Moral Leadership.

With the safety issue, the seniors leading the activity threatened cadets to the point they would not say anything.  The Group Commander and IG didn't want to do anything because they were covering things up about flying and charging CAP for it.  The Wing IG didn't want to do anything because we found when up north no one wants to visit you unless there is something in it for them. 

It all came out in the wash later when all of the seniors involved were basically caught doing stuff they weren't supposed to.  One had an accident with CAP property and that opened a can of worms for everyone.  Wing found a senior charging fuel to the squadron, pilots being charged because 4 people were flying and not paying for it, cadet funds being spent on senior activities and the airplane.  It only took about 3 years, but they were gone.

[Eclipse]

Sad.

It just stresses why process and procedure has to be followed if we want to ever fix things.

That Chaplain should have been removed.  Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

And as to the IG process, once started, it has to be followed through, but the complaints have to be filed properly and
appealed higher if nothing happens.

I believe I read that they either implemented, or were discussing, a national complaint tracking system to insure everything properly filed is
followed up.

(To those coming here from Google, despite the frequent discussions here, complaints and related issues are actually fairly unusual in CAP)

[Майор Хаткевич]

That Chaplain should have been removed.

Agreed.

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

[Eclipse]

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

I don't disagree, but my point was that allowing the cadets to simply walk away is not the proper solution, but is, unfortunately, a typical CAP
response.   Instead of addressing the actual issue, and adjusting or removing the Chaplain, the practice was allowed to continue with
cadets allowed to simply disengage.

One uncomfortable conversation avoided to the detriment of the entire unit, especially the cadets. 

[Chappie]

Allowing people to just walk away is disrespectful and sends the improper message.

If someone was trying to force me to stay in a situation like this, then I would turn a lot more disrespectful and improper than by just walking away.

I don't disagree, but my point was that allowing the cadets to simply walk away is not the proper solution, but is, unfortunately, a typical CAP
response.   Instead of addressing the actual issue, and adjusting or removing the Chaplain, the practice was allowed to continue with
cadets allowed to simply disengage.

One uncomfortable conversation avoided to the detriment of the entire unit, especially the cadets.

It is unfortunate that the commander did not either counsel the chaplain or if he or she felt uncomfortable in doing so, bring it to the attention of the wing chaplain.   Counseling the chaplain, either by the squadron commander or wing chaplain could have helped alleviate a distressing situation.  From my experience, the majority of chaplains would have heeded the counsel and tempered their remarks in the future.   Unfortunately there are some chaplains who are like some CAP members, that further steps need to be taken to modify their behavior.  Removing a chaplain is not a simple process...but there are ways to deal with a chaplain who will not comply 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Chappie,

I may come off as hostile towards Chaplains, but I am not. I don't feel the need to utilize them personally, I've had bad experiences overall, but I understand what they are good for to those who want them. Lets make it clear, there are certainly chaplains like the one mentioned in this incident. There are certainly those who are a bad fit for the job. But most ARE respectful, knowledgeable, and play by the rules.

My personal view is that we really don't need a chaplain corps. The RM is full time, with religious people making up the bulk of service members. They are there because those people may need them a lot more than we do. For us? a 2-2.5 hour meeting per week? A day activity? A weekend activity? A week activity? Some NCSAs are around 2 weeks.

If you have issues that you need religious guidance for, then either wait to go to your house of worship or your holyman/woman. Or give them a call from the activity you are at. If it's a non-religious issue, then you should be able to talk to ANY SM. Most of the "troubles" I experienced as a cadet were resolved by the regular SMs. As it should be.

[Chappie]

Chappie,

I may come off as hostile towards Chaplains, but I am not. I don't feel the need to utilize them personally, I've had bad experiences overall, but I understand what they are good for to those who want them. Lets make it clear, there are certainly chaplains like the one mentioned in this incident. There are certainly those who are a bad fit for the job. But most ARE respectful, knowledgeable, and play by the rules.

My personal view is that we really don't need a chaplain corps. The RM is full time, with religious people making up the bulk of service members. They are there because those people may need them a lot more than we do. For us? a 2-2.5 hour meeting per week? A day activity? A weekend activity? A week activity? Some NCSAs are around 2 weeks.

If you have issues that you need religious guidance for, then either wait to go to your house of worship or your holyman/woman. Or give them a call from the activity you are at. If it's a non-religious issue, then you should be able to talk to ANY SM. Most of the "troubles" I experienced as a cadet were resolved by the regular SMs. As it should be.

No problem...I did not detect hostility....just honest questions and observations based on your experience.  Regarding the need of CAP chaplains ... true that CAP is not like the RM where people are taken away from their home and based/deployed where they might not have the social/spiritual connections that once enjoyed and when a need arises would turn to, the CAP chaplain meets many needs within the organization:

1) Based on my experience there are week-end events where the activity is located away from a community and CAP members would like a religious service (we have had some cadet activities where parents have
insisted that their child attend a religious service or they would not be able to attend the activity).  Often logistics of transporting either cadets or senior members to a place of worship is a nightmare, so the CAP chaplain corps can facilitate this need.   There have been those occassions when Catholic/Jewish/Protestant services can't be provided and the chaplain can/does conduct a non-denominational/non-sectarian service.

2)  In my 16 years of CAP chaplaincy I have had the opportunity to participate in many life events of members as they have requested my services for conducting a wedding or a memorial service for themselves or a member of their family....or requested my presence when then or a family member were hospitalized.

3) Ask a cadet (especially in the CAWG) if a member of the "God Squad" didn't come in handy at an Encampment 

4) I don't have the article in front of me, but several years ago, Chaplain, Col Jay Hughes was the secretary of the Chaplain Corps Executive/Advisory Councils (took off the cross to become the GAWG Commander...and following his tenure has returned to the Chaplain Corps) observed that a chaplain can assist a commander in many ways (trying to remember all that he observed...but here is what I can remember):
    a.  knowledge of volunteer mentality - though larger churches may enjoy a few paid staff members, the major work of a church is conducted by volunteers.  Motivating them, recruiting them, training them, retaining them is a continual process for a pastor.   Knowing how to work with volunteers is something chaplains bring to the table.
    b.  communications - most pastors should be able at least talk and write.  Assisting a commander or a PAO in the areas of publications, or putting together a statement to read or printed could be useful.
    c.  confidant - once again, possessing some people skills and experience working with people can be a valuable asset to a commander who is faced with dealing with a difficult member.  Since chaplains cannot serve as IG or on Grievance Committees -- they can be an impartial party...and possibly facilitate or defuse issues in a squadron.

5) While it is true that a non-religious issue could be discussed with ANY SM, one of the privileges that chaplains (and legal officers) have is that of confidentialty.  In my years of service as a CAP chaplain, I can not begin to count how many times either a cadet or SM has sought my counsel and requested it to be confidential (BTW -- I consider all my counseling to be confidential....unless I was a 2nd opinion sought after discussing a matter with a SM or a non-clergy person).

6)  Believe it or not, there are members in CAP who do not have a house of worship or a holy man/woman but consider their squadron/group/wing or region chaplain to be theiir "holy man/woman".

7)  Non-CAP clergy can be a resource at times...however, they do not have a working knowledge of CAP and its organization...nor are they held to its regulations.  One of the good things that has occurred in the CAP chaplain corps in recent years is that Chaplains are now required to attend SLS/CLC to meet the requirements of levels 2 and 3.  And they are no longer promoted on the basis of breathing in and out for a number of years (time-in-grade).  Chaplains are now required to meet the same level of training for promotions. 

There is a corollary that I have embraced:  "All chaplains should be pastors (in the general word of providing care for others); but not all pastors can be chaplains".  There is a certain philosophy and way of conducting oneself within the four walls of a house of worship or within a particular denomination/faith group that pastors maintain.  However, a chaplain must be able to minister/serve others that are not of his/her faith group and even those who don't share his/her faith.  The true account of the Four Chaplains in WWII certainly demonstrates this corollary.  There is an account of a Roman Catholic chaplain in WWII who came across a dying soldier and offered to pray for him.  The young soldier looked at the priest and said, "But I don't belong to your church."  To which the priest said, "But you belong to my God."  It is in that spirit which CAP chaplains should serve...a particular CAP member may not belong to my church...but they certainly are one of God's fellow creatures.

[Chaplaindon]

As a retired CAP chaplain, who also served as a Squadron Commander, Deputy Commander for Cadets, Deputy Commander for Seniors, and in a variety of group, wing, region and national (volunteer) staff positions during my nearly 23 year CAP career, I would like to comment on usafaux2004 remarks. While I appreciate his generosity in mentioning that most chaplains he's been associated with in CAP have been "respectful, knowledgeable, and play by the rules" (as ALL CAP members normatively are/do), I respectfully disagree with his/her assertion that CAP "really [doesn't] need a chaplain corps."

As one might logically presume, I believe CAP needs and benefits from a Chaplain program. That it offers at least four (4) distinctive benefits to CAP and to the active/reserve/guard components of our armed forces.

FIRST: Chaplains ensure RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION to CAP members, both senior and cadet. By that I mean that chaplains are tasked with making sure that the religious needs (if any) of the membership are respected and accommodated ... and their right to be free FROM religion if they so choose.

This is a First Amendment matter. Chaplains are responsible to ensure that a member's right to the "free exercise" (1st Amendment wording ...) of his or her religious faith is not breached or amended by participation in CAP. Furthermore, a chaplain has the responsibility to ensure that a member is not coerced or forced into a religious practice (or deterred from same) by anyone in CAP. 

This was the source of significant controversy and embarrassment a few years ago at the USAF Academy when it was learned that senior Academy leadership ("RM" folks) were showing overt support for a particular doctrinal view of Christianity and, less-than-subtly pressuring cadets into accepting that view by use of their power and influence as the cadet's constituted superiors. To the forfeit of her military career, Chaplain, Capt. Melinda Morton, USAF, (a Lutheran clergyperson) challenged the practice and took on the Academy leadership and the USAF to ensure appropriate religious accommodation. Subsequently, changes were made.

While we're not the USAF, CAP can experience similar power-politics. It is a Chaplain's duty to hold personnel/leadership accountable to make sure that the religious practice rights of a member are not trampled, ignored or minimized. One example of this can be encounntered during weekend CAP activities.

By virtue of its volunteer/unpaid nature, many critical CAP activities must take place over weekends. Weekends (Friday through Sunday) just happen to encompass holy days for many faith traditions. A member may feel that s/he may be forced to choose between the "free exercise" of his/her religious faith and their membership in CAP. I know, I've been one of those members. Furthermore, by virtue of grade, position, or politics a member may feel intimidated or powerless to respond. A chaplain can help.

A chaplain can/should work with the activity leadership (both prospectively and in real time) to try and find work-arounds so as to allow members, who so choose to do so, to continue the practice of their faith tradition AND be an active and functional CAP member. For example, a chaplain COULD/SHOULD speak with the organizing project officer to discuss the matter, organize religious services scheduled around the event(s), and/or post times and places of community worship services and work with members who wish to attend to make sure they can get there.

This is nothing akin to prosletizing evangelizing members against their will (or furthering one belief system over another), rather it is ensuring that their will is respected and accommodated, insofar as possible. Mind you, I've been criticized for suggesting that a member would ever elect to practice their faith instead of completing CAP training (e.g. "CAP should take precedence, if they're serious members"). That too, should be a matter of personal desire.

No member should be ever required to put CAP activities above the practice of their faith nor precluded from doing so if they wish. That is as repehensible as a chaplain knowingly using a CD session to promote attendance at her/his church or futherance of a given religious doctrine or dogma. Any commander/leader who would demand such a thing, one way or another needs to be corrected by a chaplain. Likewise, any chaplain (or CDI, or member) that would do such a thing needs immediate correction by her/his commander. If the Bill of Rights constrains no less than Congress from "make[ing] no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," I can't see where CAPR's permit any member (from Cadet Airman to Major General) do so.

Such religious tolerance can sadly pose a problem for some clergy (as it does for some people) and that's why chaplaincy (and CAP) isn't for everybody. CAP, like our Nation as a whole, is religiously pluralistic, if a cleric cannot respect and support each member's own belief or faith traditions, or lack thereof, (that's different from embracing or agreeing with them) so as to accommodate their "free practice," then the CAP chaplaincy isn't for them.

For example, I'm a Christian/Protestant clergyperson but I remember being an encampment chaplain when one member openly stated he was a "pagan." Although I'm definitely NOT a pagan, I was still to be a chaplain available to that member (and to the Muslim cadet and the LDS senior member and the Jewish member, etc.), if they wished. Similarly, if a pilot can't be bothered to pass a CAP checkride or adhere to CAP's extensive list of aviation rules and regulations, good pilot though they may be, being a CAP pilot likely isn't for him/her.

The SECOND benefit of the chaplaincy is related to this first one. It is to advise and consel commanders and their staff on religious matters, as they directly affect CAP and its missions (e.g. accommodation, free practice, tolerace). In addition, as one of the only CAP members with a constituted right of confidentiality, a chaplain may be party to information regarding the morale or well-being of a member, members or a unit, in a way not possible for a commander or other staff. Without divulging privileged information, a chaplain may be able to assist a commander in preventing a problem or resolving one.

The THIRD benfit has to do with MORAL/ETHICAL GUIDANCE. As part of the Master of Divinity degree, required of (non-waiver) CAP and military chaplains, is usually some formal academic instruction in ethics/morals (the words literally mean the same, really, ethics is of Greek origin and morals of Latin origin). This background can serve as a resource in member development, both senior and cadet.

There used to be a program called "Ethics for Command" that I made a regular part of unit training for senior members when I was a squadron commander, long before I became a chaplain. Although normatively led by one of our unit chaplain, this is NOT a religious activity, rather it was a practical and lively exercise of quite practical decision-making methodologies. It supported all of the missions of CAP as all require ethical decision-making. That's how I led ML/CD programs for cadets as well.

Said guidance can be on a broad-scale or person to person. Again, a chaplain (unlike a CDI) offers confidential consel. As a commander (and Deputy, so forth) I found the chaplain was the perfect person to "bounce ideas off of" when I was working out my next step in a matter of consequence. I may not have embraced his/her individual faith tradition, but I valued their consel and confidence.

I can tell you that a large-scale example of this happened 7 years ago in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In the poor judgement of someone, either at CAP National HQ or with the JTF-Katrina, absolutely no chaplain were permitted to deploy as chaplains. A few days into the disaster the CISM teams, I was involved with were sent in and encountered many morale issues that could/should have been dealt with by chaplains, days earlier. By the time the CISM teams arrived, they'd bloomed into significant stress issues/crises requiring more significant intervention. Had CAP volunteers had access to chaplains in the field early on, it would have made a huge difference in the overall stress and morale of our forces.

The FOURTH benefit is to the USAF, who is in need of chaplain support. It is worthwhile to note that there are only about 150 fewer CAP chaplains as there are active duty USAF chaplains ... in the whole USAF. And there have been, and likely will continue to be –especially under sequestration- cuts in that current numbers.

To ensure chaplain support of the USAF, CAPR 265-1 (E), §A, 2b, (p. 1): stated [at least last time I checked] "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under the conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate." The same paragraph adds, "In anticipation of this requirement the CAP Chaplain Service will ... provide appropriate training to prepare [CAP chaplains] for domestic, non-combat ministries." This is IAW Chapter 909, Title 10, USC § 9446.

The CAP chaplain service is needed to support the USAF war-fighters and their families. CAP chaplains have been serving in this role since before 9/11 and to a much greater degree since. Non-waiver CAP chaplains are the only component of CAP to be equally qualified (academically and ecclesiastically) as their USAF colleagues. In recognition of this distinction, CAP chaplains wear the USAF chaplain badge. 

Bottom line, CAP needs a chaplaincy because the USAF needs them to have one. So long as CAP wears the blue suit of the USAF and holds itself, however tenuously, to be the USAF's Auxiliary, we must respect their demands upon us.

There is one area, though where I do find myself in partial agreement with some of the critics of the chaplain service. It has to do with the consistency of practice of our chaplains. Not every chaplain does what they are supposed to do. Mind you, as the USAF Academy controversy of a few years ago (or the more recent Basic Training sexual abuse scandal) demonstrated not every USAF chaplain or commander/staff officer does as they should either.

This is where standards and accountability needs to be focused upon. Just as our pilots pass standardized FAA licensing examinations, and standardized CAPF-5 checkrides, chaplains (and other staff officers likewise) need to have better and more standardized training. Much of the professional "chaplain training" in CAP comes at the Region Chaplain Staff Colleges. These are excellent in-residence courses normally taken well after one becomes a practicing chaplain. It's the timing of the Colleges that's my issue.

I think CAP needs a basic chaplain training program (analogous to the USAF chaplain school) BEFORE chaplains pin on their badge and start their ministry. Similarly, I believe that we need to have one standard for CAP chaplain's educational requirements, namely one consistent with the USAF. As it is we have two levels of chaplains, regular (with a Master of Divinity degree or similar from an accredited theological school) and "waiver" chaplains who do not. Only regular chaplains may serve in USAF "backup" roles. I think that should be the standard.

Thus there should be a minimum pre-membership educational requirements for chaplain candidates and an initial "basic chaplain course" before they are allowed to serve a unit. I personally developed a program to provide initial training for new chaplains and to standardize the training of existing chaplains ten years ago. It was submitted through channels and sadly went nowhere.

Sadly, if CAP isn't going to do a better job of recruiting and training clergy for the specific rigors of CAP chaplaincy, continue to develop and evaluate chaplains during their career and hold them accountable as professionals (not unlike the way we evaluate pilots and others), CAP's chaplain program will continue to be a hit or miss affair. I believe most chaplains are dedicated professionals keen on the unique challenges of their vocation, but without the support of the membership (that's TOTALLY different from agreeing with their theology, faith traditions, or politics) they too will seek other venues to serve, and then who do you have left in a crisis like the next Katrina?

Let's respect and support CAP chaplains as we ought to respect, support, and thank all our members. Instead of looking for ways/reasons to eliminate the chaplain program, let's look –together- to make it better, stronger, and more useful for CAP, the USAF and our Nation.

[Chappie]

^^^Amen to that^^^ 

[abdsp51]

I have made use of the Chaplains service on numerous occasions, and have felt better afterwards.  When I have gone I have made it known that I would like the religous tone kept at a minimum.  They are an exceptionally beneficial service both in the AF and CAP.  I do believe that chaplains should led some of our curriculum but shouldn't push one belief or another on membership.

[BlueLakes1]

Falcon00, I know that we have a Falcon Squadron in Indiana. If you're assigned there, would you mind to contact me? I'd be happy to help bring some resolution to your issues. Please email me at mcreed@inwg.cap.gov, or PM me for my telephone number.

[Private Investigator]

As a retired CAP chaplain, ...during my nearly 23 year CAP career

Thank you sir for your service. That was great information ou shared with us.   :clap:

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have made limited use of Chaplains in CAP, because I simply haven't been in units that had many of them (only one, and we lost him when he got a call to a congregation in another state).  However, I have known two outstanding AF Chaplains, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish.  Despite the fact that I am of neither faith (I am Lutheran), both were exceedingly helpful to me and I consider them a blessing from God when I needed them.

As far as "following orders" goes...at the risk of sounding like "take my toys and go home," after almost 20 years of off-and-on CAP involvement I've come to realise that "orders" given in CAP are very much subject to how the recipient of the orders wants to view them in light of the fact that, unlike in the RealMilitary, if someone gets a raw deal in CAP they can say "I don't need this Bravo Sierra" and leave the organisation.  As a Captain-hopefully-soon-to-be-Major, I am very cautious in doling out "orders."  I get a much better response from people if I ask them to do something, rather than say "Lieutenant/Cadet, this needs to be done, now rock it! (which I've never done anyway)."

[RRLE]

FWIW - the issue of the OP could never arise in the USCG Aux since there is no command authority in the Aux. Although both organizations are civilian auxiliaries to military organizations, the leadership authority is vastly different.

The following are quotes from the Auxiliary Manual on the topic:

In the Auxiliary, the phrase ―chain of leadership and management‖ describes a system of organizational communication and responsibility providing for an effective and efficient path for the flow of information through all organizational levels. The system is best described as a chain of leadership and management rather than a chain of command, as no military command authority exists. ...

The Auxiliary, as a uniformed organization of civilian volunteers, presents unusual leadership and management challenges. There is no authority to hire or fire an Auxiliarist, nor is there any military command authority. ...

Leadership and management capability rests on Auxiliarists' consent and on effective leadership skills. ...

Effective Auxiliary leaders convince Auxiliarists to accept personal responsibility for task and mission accomplishment for which they have volunteered.

Also FWIW - the Aux does not have chaplains and never did. A unit leader may appoint Lay Leaders. Even if ordained the Lay Leader may not use the title Chaplain and may not wear Chaplain insignia. The Lay Leader's job is mostly to lead invocations. With that said, it is not hard to find evidence in unit newsletters where the unit has designated a chaplain in violation of the regs.

[Chaplaindon]

Also FWIW - the Aux does not have chaplains and never did. A unit leader may appoint Lay Leaders. Even if ordained the Lay Leader may not use the title Chaplain and may not wear Chaplain insignia. The Lay Leader's job is mostly to lead invocations. With that said, it is not hard to find evidence in unit newsletters where the unit has designated a chaplain in violation of the regs.

That's a good point.

As an Auxiliarist (currently) myself, I happily serve as the Publications Officer (FSO-PB). That said, I would likely apply to be an AUX Chaplain if such a position was ever created, but I only hold my breath during water survival and egress training, not for this slim possibility.

However, with the lingering threat of sequestration in DC, I wonder what effect such draconian cuts to the DoD budget might have on the continued availability of US Navy Chaplains to minister to the active and reserve USCG, the so-called "Gold Side."

An Auxiliary Chaplain program, to support the USCG and augment a potentially GREATLY reduced cadre of USN Chaplains, seems, at least, plausible. Just because the CGAUX never had them before doesn't mean an yet-unforeseen-necessity won't "parent" an invention. The USN never had women serving on submarines until recently either ...

Hopefully sequestration won't happen and the USN Chaplains will continue their long-standing tradition of dutiful service to our Coasties.

Regardless, I'll remain available should the situation ever change.

Semper Paratus!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm not surprised to hear that about the Navy Chaplaincy.

I've thought that of all the Chaplain Services, they're spread the most thin...they have to cover the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and NOAA (?) and USPHS (?).

Waaayyy back in time when I considered going to seminary, Chaplaincy was something I was weighing.

[Chappie]

Also FWIW - the Aux does not have chaplains and never did. A unit leader may appoint Lay Leaders. Even if ordained the Lay Leader may not use the title Chaplain and may not wear Chaplain insignia. The Lay Leader's job is mostly to lead invocations. With that said, it is not hard to find evidence in unit newsletters where the unit has designated a chaplain in violation of the regs.

That's a good point.

As an Auxiliarist (currently) myself, I happily serve as the Publications Officer (FSO-PB). That said, I would likely apply to be an AUX Chaplain if such a position was ever created, but I only hold my breath during water survival and egress training, not for this slim possibility.

However, with the lingering threat of sequestration in DC, I wonder what effect such draconian cuts to the DoD budget might have on the continued availability of US Navy Chaplains to minister to the active and reserve USCG, the so-called "Gold Side."

An Auxiliary Chaplain program, to support the USCG and augment a potentially GREATLY reduced cadre of USN Chaplains, seems, at least, plausible. Just because the CGAUX never had them before doesn't mean an yet-unforeseen-necessity won't "parent" an invention. The USN never had women serving on submarines until recently either ...

Hopefully sequestration won't happen and the USN Chaplains will continue their long-standing tradition of dutiful service to our Coasties.

Regardless, I'll remain available should the situation ever change.

Semper Paratus!

Several years ago (early 2000's) there were reports circulating that the USCG Auxiliary was inquiring of the relationship that the CAP  Chaplain Corps had with the USAF Chaplain Corp and how CAP Chaplains functioned in order that they might institute something similar.   That was several years ago and nothing has been said since then as to what ever became of the idea.

[RiverAux]

Most recently they made it more difficult to become a "Lay Leader" in the Aux.  They aren't chaplains and aren't really officially staff officers and can't do much of anything. 

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501922942/m/8710099492001?r=5360053592001#5360053592001

[RRLE]

Several years ago (early 2000's) there were reports circulating that the USCG Auxiliary was inquiring of the relationship that the CAP  Chaplain Corps had with the USAF Chaplain Corp and how CAP Chaplains functioned in order that they might institute something similar.   That was several years ago and nothing has been said since then as to what ever became of the idea.

Several years ago, one or two Auxiliary districts were allowed to run a trial chaplain program. I don't think the trial chaplains were allowed to wear chaplain insignia but they were called chaplains. The time period would fit with your timeline above. The program was abruptly terminated and strict orders went out from the USCG to stop using the title chaplain. No official explanation was ever given for the abrupt termination. Scuttlebutt has it that a not insignificant number of the trial chaplains were of the proselytizing variety and would not stop when requested. Rather then deal with the problems the USCG terminated the program with a 'never again'.