NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..

Started by abysmal, May 25, 2005, 01:00:29 AM

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

abysmal

Copied from...
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2005/05/from_the_recent.html#more

The National Executive Committee met recently (13 & 14 May) in Cincinnati, OH. 

Out of this, a few nuggets have emerged from the minutes that I thought were interesting and informative about the inner workings of Civil Air Patrol and our national governance structure.  Its sometimes difficult for our newer members to understand how our organization is organized and run at the echelons above reality.

(Note: these are not the official minutes, but gleaned from notes taken during the meeting. There was more, but these are some of the more interesting points...)

The Air Force

"The National Staff & NHQ are in a dialog with the Office of the Secretary of Defense regarding an opinion by the Air Force JAG regarding how much control the Air Force should exercise over CAP's corporate missions.   CAP does not agree with AF/JA's interpretation of the law.   This affects the pending re-write of the Air Force Policy Directives and Air Force Instructions that regulate CAP from the Air Force's perspective."

[...]

"The National Commander has formally asked the Acting Secretary of the Air Force to declare that the glider program is an integral part of the CAP mission.   If this declaration is made, our glider program can be funded with Air Force money like the powered flight cadet orientation ride program."

:: OK, woah!! Wait a minute. Is this the old "We are, but we aren't" thing rearing its ugly head again?   I've seen this a lot since 1994: The dueling positions of "We're a private corporation!" and "We're part of the Air Force!" used when it suits the Corporation's needs.  The Air Force attempts to exercise control over CAP, CAP counters with "We're a private non-profit corporation!"   The Air Force says "OK, Mr. Private Non-Profit Corporation, now we're going to regard this (gliders, non-AF directed SAR flying, etc. Pick one) as 'corporate missions,' so you guys are on your own here." and CAP comes back with "But we're part of the Air Force!!"

Folks, its going to be tough to have this one both ways. Either we're independent, or we're the Air Force Auxiliary. Which one is it? There can't be much grey area here, and if there is, we're cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces.

Frankly, I'm on the "More Air Force" side of the house, but hey, YMMV.  I've seen the "Less Air Force" option, and I think the proof is in the pudding: the membership has been in a general decline since the early 1990s, as we began to distance ourselves from our parent service. What gives?
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Major_Chuck

I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

abysmal

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 03:27:55 AM
I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

Can anyone fill in some of the blanks on what went on with CAP vs. The USAF while I was out of CAP in the 90's and early 2000??

When I was active from the late 80's through the mid 90's we seemed to have a pretty good relationship. But that obviously changed at some point.

While at SLS some of this came up during the uniform sessions and why CAP was "punished" with the maroon rank ensignia for senior members..
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Major_Chuck

There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major_Chuck

Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

abysmal

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 07:16:49 PM
There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Amazing.
Power corrupts I suppose.
Were there any criminal repercussions over the "missing" money?
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

abysmal

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 07:17:48 PM
Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.

This one came up in SLS, and it was a pretty HOT TOPIC of discussion.

It was really quite interesting.
One the first day of the SLS many of the senior's came in wearing the corporate blue shirt.
The Lt. Col that was instructing then referred to them as the "CAP Bowling Shirts".
The next day nearly all of those same senior members came in wearing the White shirt and Grey Trouser combination.
It was a markedly noticable improvement in attire.

Has CAP ever considered a two track senior rank program.
One for leadership positions that REQUIRES them to meet USAF standards, and a whole different structure for those who CHOOSE not to meet standards?

Still seemed wrong to me to be looking at a 300lb man wearing Lt. Col rank on his shoulders.
Just seems insulting to the whole military image.
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

arajca

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 07:17:48 PM
Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.

This one came up in SLS, and it was a pretty HOT TOPIC of discussion.

It was really quite interesting.
One the first day of the SLS many of the senior's came in wearing the corporate blue shirt.
The Lt. Col that was instructing then referred to them as the "CAP Bowling Shirts".
The next day nearly all of those same senior members came in wearing the White shirt and Grey Trouser combination.
It was a markedly noticable improvement in attire.
If that happend with the folks I went to SLS with, the whole class would have shown up in 'bowling shirts'.

Quote
Has CAP ever considered a two track senior rank program.
One for leadership positions that REQUIRES them to meet USAF standards, and a whole different structure for those who CHOOSE not to meet standards?

Still seemed wrong to me to be looking at a 300lb man wearing Lt. Col rank on his shoulders.
Just seems insulting to the whole military image.

So, you'd advocate enforcing military weights standards on volunteers who are willing to take charge of units and lead them, right?

If you are going to go down that route, just require all members to meet those standards, because that is what will happen. Not officially, but realistically. Also, as a side effect, you'd lose alot of pilots - which CAP seems to need to have.  You'd also have the effect to those member who do not aspire to leadership positions being treated as second class members. You also run into ADA problems. There are some folks who cannot meet the AF standards for due to medical conditions. 

abysmal

#8
Quote from: arajca on May 25, 2005, 08:40:12 PM
So, you'd advocate enforcing military weights standards on volunteers who are willing to take charge of units and lead them, right?

If you are going to go down that route, just require all members to meet those standards, because that is what will happen. Not officially, but realistically. Also, as a side effect, you'd lose alot of pilots - which CAP seems to need to have.  You'd also have the effect to those member who do not aspire to leadership positions being treated as second class members. You also run into ADA problems. There are some folks who cannot meet the AF standards for due to medical conditions. 

I am "Advocating" nothing at all.
I am ASKING if this has ever been considered.

While I was on active duty in the US Army we had a DUAL TRACK rank system.
Because I was a medic, I was a "Specialist", Not a corporal. A Spec 5, not a sergeant, etc..
Never thought of myself as a 2nd class anything. I freely choose to join the medical Corps and that was part and parcel to that decission.

Somehow, it seems to me, some people have forgotten that it is a "Privilage" to wear the USAF Uniform and its accompanying rank.
This privilage is bestowed upon us by the USAF, and it is their's and their's alone to set the requirements for us to meet in order to be able to wear it.

For those volunteer members that are either Unable or Unwilling to meet those standards we have the bowling shirts and a host of other "Alternative" uniforms. Since we have Alternative Uniforms, why don't we have matching Alternative Ranks to go with them.??

edit: fixed quote tags
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

arajca

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 09:50:36 PM
I am "Advocating" nothing at all.
I am ASKING if this has ever been considered.
OK, my mistake. I don't think it has been considered from reading the minutes of the NB and NEC available online.
Quote
Somehow, it seems to me, some people have forgotten that it is a "Privilage" to wear the USAF Uniform and its accompanying rank.
This privilage is bestowed upon us by the USAF, and it is their's and their's alone to set the requirements for us to meet in order to be able to wear it.

For those volunteer members that are either Unable or Unwilling to meet those standards we have the bowling shirts and a host of other "Alternative" uniforms. Since we have Alternative Uniforms, why don't we have matching Alternative Ranks to go with them.??
CAP wears the Air Force uniform with Distinctive CAP insignia as required by law and DoD regs. Our grade insignia, while similar to the AF, is not the same. The only insignia/devices that are the same as the AF are the silver nameplate for the service dress coat and NCO insignia.

If you have alternate grades, how do they relate? Do all AF type grades trump all CAP type grades?

pixelwonk

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 03:27:55 AM
I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

No, they have their own problems that are just as unique.

Like losing over seven thousand members in a matter of a few months.

Major_Chuck

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 07:16:49 PM
There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Amazing.
Power corrupts I suppose.
Were there any criminal repercussions over the "missing" money?


Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

-cc
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major_Chuck

Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 03:27:55 AM
I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

No, they have their own problems that are just as unique.

Like losing over seven thousand members in a matter of a few months.

Interesting.  I did not know that.  Not being a member of the CG Auxiliary I can't speak to their recruiting and retention practices.

-CC
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

pixelwonk

Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

abysmal

Quote from: arajca on May 25, 2005, 10:43:14 PM
CAP wears the Air Force uniform with Distinctive CAP insignia as required by law and DoD regs. Our grade insignia, while similar to the AF, is not the same. The only insignia/devices that are the same as the AF are the silver nameplate for the service dress coat and NCO insignia.

If you have alternate grades, how do they relate? Do all AF type grades trump all CAP type grades?


OK.
From the perspective of the person looking at someone in CAP who is NOT a member of the armed forces.
What does the average "Joe" on the street think when he sees someone in Air Force Blues with Capt, Maj, Col on their shoulder.??
Does he think, Oh, thats a volunteer of a civilian corporation, or thats a member of the US Military??

From that first presentation to the unitiated, everything else follows about first impressions.

I am not sure if I follow your question or not.
But if I am reading it correctly, yes, ALL Military grades would trump all CAP grades.

But think of it this way.
WHEN does Rank REALLY have a direct impact on members in CAP??

In the military your told to do something, and if you don't do it, your under the UCMJ, and your butt is in a sling.
In CAP, generally speaking, your asked to do something, and if you don't do it, the ABSOLUTE worst thing that can happen to you is that you get a 2B and your out of CAP. The level of accountability is Vasty Different, as is the need for real rank..
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

abysmal

Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:07:47 PM
Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

I wonder how many of them woudn't have passed???
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

abysmal

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 11:00:27 PM

Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

I can see why the USAF would NOT be happy about that.
And I am glad to hear that there WERE criminal charges brought against that guy for taking that kind of money.
I would be very dissapointed if he had been allowed to walk away.

Though we are not subject to the UCMJ, we are still criminally lible for our actions.
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Major_Chuck

It should be noted that our CAP rank confers no rank or privledge however many organizations will respect the rank and position of the wearer out of courtesy and customs.

When the National Commander is performing duties in his capacity his 'rank' as a Major General (granted by the Chief of Staff, USAF) allows him to move and operate on that particular level.  His rank indicates that he is the 'top dog' in our organization.  

Several years ago I was at an activity that involved CAP cadets and cadets of a military school.  They (the cadets and the instructors) recognized my rank and rendered the customs and courtesies associated with it.  In turn, the senior officers and cadets did the same towards the staff of the military school and their cadet corps.

Our rank is nothing but a custom.  It would be nice if I was 'commissioned' but I am 'appointed' to my current rank and content with that.  

Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major_Chuck

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:26:57 PM
Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 11:00:27 PM

Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

I can see why the USAF would NOT be happy about that.
And I am glad to hear that there WERE criminal charges brought against that guy for taking that kind of money.
I would be very dissapointed if he had been allowed to walk away.

Though we are not subject to the UCMJ, we are still criminally lible for our actions.

Again it brings up the whole CAP Corporation versus USAF Auxiliary.  As a Corporation we can take legal action to go after those who steal from us.  I am sure that as the AF Auxiliary there are ways as well but easier to do it as a non-profit corporation.

-CC
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

pixelwonk

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:24:43 PM
Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:07:47 PM
Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

I wonder how many of them woudn't have passed???

not passed because of a criminal background?  not many at all. 

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

abysmal

Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:38:40 PM

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

pixelwonk

Quote from: Major_Chuck on May 25, 2005, 11:31:51 PM

Our rank is nothing but a custom.  It would be nice if I was 'commissioned' but I am 'appointed' to my current rank and content with that. 

That's why I favor the warrant/flight officer grades we have discussed in the past.  Specifically because the AF does not have them, we would not be trying to show up or compete with anybody.  Let it be a rank system that is unique to CAP, while still reflecting the experience that the member brings to the table.  Let it also be a system where the CAP flight/warrant officer yields to ALL members of the military.   not unlike the CG Aux. (Even the  Aux National Commander would render a salute to an active Duty or Reserve Coastie.)

It would be interesting to do a study on what CAP grade/rank means to the adult members of CAP. 
(notice I didn't say SM, Chuck.  I know you hate the term Senior Member ;D )


pixelwonk

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:47:58 PM
Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:38:40 PM

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???

Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.

abysmal

I think I am leaning toward going a step further than what your looking at.
I have NO problem at all with wearing the real military rank.
And I think that if you qualify to wear it, AND are willing to be held accountable to the USAF for it proper wear, and are in a position that it makes sence for you to be wearing it, then why not.

And for everyone else, use the alternate rank and alternate uniform.

Maybe its just because I am prior service, but I would have no problem at all in raising my right arm and taking another oath to serve and protect and being held fully accountable for all actions while in uniform, if I also got the priviliges that come with it.
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

abysmal

Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:52:23 PM
Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.

Perhaps your asking the wrong question here.
I have 4 children, 2 of which could be in CAP, 1 of which is.

Do I really want to turn my children over to people in a volunteer quasi-military organization that are UNWILLING to go through the hoops of a SF-86 background check?

Once again this is all about accountability.
If not everyone, then shouldn't those in leadership positions be the MOST accountable to the organization??
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

pixelwonk

I dunno,  I have CAP-aged children myself and I am comfortable with the criminal background check that CAP does.

but that's just me.

Slim

Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:52:23 PM
Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:47:58 PM
Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:38:40 PM

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???

Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.

I decided it wasn't worth it for me.  I just couldn't figure out what had changed that now meant I couldn't pull duty at the station any more because I didn't have a security clearance.  And, since doing things like that were about 97% of the reason I joined in the first place, I just couldn't see the need any more.


Slim

Slim

Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:54:29 PM
I think I am leaning toward going a step further than what your looking at.
I have NO problem at all with wearing the real military rank.
And I think that if you qualify to wear it, AND are willing to be held accountable to the USAF for it proper wear, and are in a position that it makes sence for you to be wearing it, then why not.

And for everyone else, use the alternate rank and alternate uniform.

And how is this not creating a situation of superiority/inferiority?  I'll be the first to stand up and admit that rank among seniors is like honor among thieves.  Your idea (and those that have gone before it--and there have been many), would do nothing but alienate many people who see service in CAP as the only way they can serve their country and community.  Let's not forget that our founding fathers were people who were possessed of special skills (pilots, radio operators, etc), but were for medical, age, or other reasons ineligible for service in the Army Air Corps.

You and I have communicated through this board on a few other issues where you were soliciting advice on a certain subject.  Would you have given any less credence or substance to my advice if my rank was listed as "Grand Poo-bah" instead of Major?

The _only_ real purpose of rank in the senior program is that it shows a certain amount of experience in the program, that the person has been a member at least 5-6 years, or came in with a special or mission related skill.

It just is not possible to compare a CAP Major to an Air Force Major (or any rank for that matter).  An AF major has been through one of the officer Ascension programs (ROTC, OTS or the Blue Zoo), ASBOC (or it's equivalent-help me out here folks), specialty training, and squadron officer's school.  They are all college educated (and in some pretty heavy programs), and willing to sign off a certain amount of time for the privilege of being there.

I've been through Level I, SLS, ECI  13/COP, and CLC.  I became a major at a time where most AF captains should be at about the halfway point of time-in service for promotion.  And I was a very senior captain (12 plus years) when I was finally able to make it to a CLC.  I'm a high school graduate with vocational training (EMT school) after.  The only college credits I have are what CCAF (or whatever it's called now) granted me for taking the CAP scanner and observer courses and ECI 13.  And I can leave it all behind tomorrow if I wanted to.

I never once tried to pass myself off as an Air Force major.  However, I am proud to say that I am a major in CAP, and that I did everything required (and then some) to earn the right to wear those golden oak leaves.

Also, just for the record (and anyone from CS will tell you), I'm one of those so-called second class members because I can't wear the AF style uniforms.  However, anyone who has ever seen me will tell you that I put just as much pride into the uniforms I do wear as anyone else.


Slim

abysmal

Grand-Poo-Bah Freytag:

Lots of interesting thoughts in your post.

So, your concerned that we might create a "2nd Class" CAP senior member.
Question...
Why is it that ALL of the military branches of the US Military have BOTH an enlisted corps and an officer corps?
Have you ever come across a senior NCO with an infereority complex?
I certainly didn't in division.
The senior NCOs ran the place.
Do we really need every adult member of CAP to be an officer, and at that a SENIOR grade officer?

Something tells me we could use a whole lot more WARRENT officers and a lot less Majors and Cols.
But in the same breath we have all this rank and nothing to do with it.
But I digress.

My whole point, (and remember I am NOT advocating ANY changes, just fielding a discussion about why the USAF is none to happy with us,) is that I would very much like to enjoy some additional benefits that previsouly came along with being a member of the Armed Forces. And that in order to obtain those aditional benefits I would be quite happy to be held fully accountable, NOT something members of CAP are currently doing.

And if your going to wear the "Bowling Shirt" then were it WELL and make it look as sharp as possible!
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

dwb

Re: SF 86

In addition to the privacy issues, there is a substantial cost associated with the investigation.  And it's overkill.  I want to know if new senior members have a substantive criminal history.  Beyond that, it's really not any of CAP's business, and it's not any of mine, either.

Considering the missions we perform, it's also totally unnecessary.  And it would add months (years?) to the time between application for membership and being considered a "full" member.

SF 86s for CAP are bad for many, many reasons.  I could entertain the argument that Counterdrug aircrews should have an additional background check, but that's about it.

Re: Uniforms/Rank

I choose to wear the aviator shirt combination, even though I meet USAF weight and grooming standards.  I don't think we should force senior members into a grade structure based on their body type.  Smacks of discrimination to me.

"oh, Mr. Fatbody, you'll be in the fat suit with the fat ranks.  Welcome to CAP!"

Yeah, right.  ::)

In fact, I could argue that all senior members should be in the CAP-distinctive uniform, because everyone can wear it and it would make us actually "uniform".

arajca

On the SF 86, CAP counter drug personnel go through a federal background check and training. I don't know if it is an SF 86 or whatever.

pixelwonk

#31
I've submitted to the US Customs and DEA checks and they're not even close compared to the SF86 (which is a form, by the way.  a long, long, form)  But they do the job.

With regards to the cost, the CG will/have spent 5 Million on ankle-grabbing background checks for its members who are not doing anything different than what they were last year.

In all fairness, you don't have to go through the "ankle grabber" to simply be a member.  Persons opting to provide "support" duties, ie: administration, public affairs, teach boating classes, etc... can submit to a fingerprint and felony check.  not unlike what we do in CAP.

edit: Addendum...  I am aware of one prospective Auxie who has waited over six months to become a member of the Coast Gaurd Auxiliary.  And that was with the  Fingerprint check, not the SF86. When comparing that to our organization, in that time, the average S'member would have passed the background, went through level one, gotten basic ES rated, started their specialty track and be looking at a promotion soon.

Or at least I hope they would've.  Perhaps my glasses are slightly rose-tinted.

MIKE

Quote from: tedda on May 26, 2005, 05:06:30 PM
In all fairness, you don't have to go through the "ankle grabber" to simply be a member.  Persons opting to provide "support" duties, ie: administration, public affairs, teach boating classes, etc... can submit to a fingerprint and felony check.  not unlike what we do in CAP.

edit: Addendum...  I am aware of one prospective Auxie who has waited over six months to become a member of the Coast Gaurd Auxiliary.  And that was with the  Fingerprint check, not the SF86. When comparing that to our organization, in that time, the average S'member would have passed the background, went through level one, gotten basic ES rated, started their specialty track and be looking at a promotion soon.

As a prospective Auxie, I was gonna PM you about this because that was the impression I was getting based on the info I had seen... So thank you for answering my question.  :)

I suspect I could get involved with Ops at some point, but it's nice to know that I can at least get my foot in the door and get started without going through the PSI and the SF86.  Seems like the Flotilla I'm at is mostly involved with RBS and VSC's, but that could change in future.

Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)
Mike Johnston

dwb

Quote from: arajca on May 26, 2005, 04:52:47 PM
On the SF 86, CAP counter drug personnel go through a federal background check and training. I don't know if it is an SF 86 or whatever.

It's not.  They probably do some type of national agency / local agency check.  By the looks of the CAPF 83, the DEA is the adjudicating agency, so it might be a check similar to what law enforcement personnel have to go through.

The SF 86 is to obtain a security clearance, which is a much more rigorous investigation, even for Secret.  The SSBI for Top Secret probes every aspect of your life for the past 10 years.

pixelwonk

Quote from: justin_bailey on May 26, 2005, 06:08:11 PM

The SF 86 is to obtain a security clearance, which is a much more rigorous investigation, even for Secret.  The SSBI for Top Secret probes every aspect of your life for the past 10 years.

The interesting thing that you probably know but others might not is that it really doesn't grant you a secret clearance.  It only determines your eligibility for one.  A secret clearance has to be requested by the Active Duty Coast Guard and is hardly necessary for a large majority of people involved in the Aux.  The small remainder being Auxie Auggies, those Auxilirists who augment the active duty coast guard.

Slim

Quote from: abysmal on May 26, 2005, 03:47:20 PM
Grand-Poo-Bah Freytag:

Lots of interesting thoughts in your post.

So, your concerned that we might create a "2nd Class" CAP senior member.

There is no concern.  It is a fact that any of us who can't wear the AF style uniform are looked down upon by both peers an subordinates.  I had a C/Maj ask me once (while wearing the blue utility uniform) if I had just escaped from NASA.  He, and the other cadets who witnessed our little discussion about it, will never do so again.  We're looked down upon by violating regs and wearing AF style uniforms, and we're looked down upon because we do the right thing and wear the uniforms we're supposed to.

QuoteQuestion...
Why is it that ALL of the military branches of the US Military have BOTH an enlisted corps and an officer corps?
Have you ever come across a senior NCO with an infereority complex?
I certainly didn't in division.
The senior NCOs ran the place.
Do we really need every adult member of CAP to be an officer, and at that a SENIOR grade officer?

Something tells me we could use a whole lot more WARRENT officers and a lot less Majors and Cols.
But in the same breath we have all this rank and nothing to do with it.
But I digress.

I've got a pretty good idea of how things work in the military, despite the fact that I never spent a day in it.  Do I think we could have more warrants and NCOs?  Yeah, probably, but this is the system we have now.  And, there would be just as much outrage from the warrant officers or NCOs of the world if we told our members that you had to be a warrant officer or NCO if you don't meet weight/grooming standards.  Another double edged sword, we're screwed no matter what we do.  And then, we're denying some of our most dedicated members the privledge of command because they can't be an officer.  The only way to do this is to create a separate rank system, which then further increases the separation among those who can and those who can't/won't wear the AF uniform.

QuoteMy whole point, (and remember I am NOT advocating ANY changes, just fielding a discussion about why the USAF is none to happy with us,) is that I would very much like to enjoy some additional benefits that previsouly came along with being a member of the Armed Forces. And that in order to obtain those aditional benefits I would be quite happy to be held fully accountable, NOT something members of CAP are currently doing.

I'm all for it too.  And I'd gladly submit myself to that same level of accountability that you mention.  The Air Force has issues with this organization because of what a few higher ranking members may (or may not) have done.  I phrase it that way because I've never seen some of the issues that seem to be a problem elsewhere.  I miss the days when each wing had an active duty AF officer and NCO assigned as liaison officers.  We always had oversight from our parent service, and support was so much easier for us to get.

QuoteAnd if your going to wear the "Bowling Shirt" then were it WELL and make it look as sharp as possible!

I don't wear the golf shirt, but I am considering one (for certain activities).  I do wear the aviator shirt combo and the BFU/BUU.  And I will tell you that I put just as much time, effort, and pride into wearing those uniforms as I did when the AF style was an option for me.


Slim

abysmal

Quote from: Slim on May 31, 2005, 05:42:41 AM
I do wear the aviator shirt combo and the BFU/BUU.  And I will tell you that I put just as much time, effort, and pride into wearing those uniforms as I did when the AF style was an option for me.

Its amazing the difference that taking alittle extra time and effort makes on the final result...
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

cmoore

Quote from: MIKE on May 26, 2005, 05:49:58 PM
Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)

Where does one find the New Member Reference Guide?  Is it online?  I've been considering the CGAUX and I'd like to learn more about it.
1st Lt Chris Moore
Sacramento Composite Squadron 14

MIKE

Quote from: cmoore on June 01, 2005, 02:10:37 AM
Quote from: MIKE on May 26, 2005, 05:49:58 PM
Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)

Where does one find the New Member Reference Guide?  Is it online?  I've been considering the CGAUX and I'd like to learn more about it.

Find it on this page.

Also check out the AuxMan.
Mike Johnston

nfx500

A friend of mine who is a LtCol (as I am) had discussed demoting all field grade officers to captain and everyone else to first or second lieutenant, and adding some significant requirements for re-promotion.  I know it can't be done, but it would be interesting.  I've been a LtCol for 19 years (longer than most of the hierarchs have even BEEN in CAP), but I'd be willing to do that.

BTW, my sister recently retired as a USAF colonel and had no problem giving respect to CAP officers who deserved it.


jh

LtCol John J. Higgins, Jr.

16 years a Sq Cmdr, 3 yrs a Group Cmdr, 2.5 years Wing Dir of CP, Other wing/reg staff positions

Currently taking a break

BillB

A friend of mine who is a LtCol (as I am) had discussed demoting all field grade officers to captain and everyone else to first or second lieutenant, and adding some significant requirements for re-promotion.

Only problem I see with this being, I went through the "old" program which required ECI 2 (later watered down as ECI 13), SOS, Command and Staff College, Industrial College of the Armed Forces (now National Defense University) and Air War College. Plus National Staff College and the rest of the requirements for level 5. So what requirements would you need to re-earn the rank of LtCol? I was even a cadet under the antique cadet program where all you could earn was the Cadet COP with various clasps equivlant to todays Spaatz. So what would I have to do to re-earn my rank of LtCol?
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

nfx500

QuoteSo what would I have to do to re-earn my rank of LtCol?

I don't know.  We could have a lot of us greybeards around to figure it out.


John
LtCol John J. Higgins, Jr.

16 years a Sq Cmdr, 3 yrs a Group Cmdr, 2.5 years Wing Dir of CP, Other wing/reg staff positions

Currently taking a break

shorning

#42
Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: abysmal on May 25, 2005, 11:24:43 PM
Quote from: tedda on May 25, 2005, 11:07:47 PM
Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

I wonder how many of them woudn't have passed???

not passed because of a criminal background?  not many at all. 

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

Hmmmm....I've filled out an SF86 several time for my job.  I work with sensitive information.  My wife also had to fill out an SF86 for her job.  She doesn't deal with classified information at all.  Hers was for a National Agency Check. 

The SF86 is the document used to collect information.  The level to which investigators dig depends on the clearance needed.  For me, they break out the microscope.  However, for many others they only do a National Agency Check.  And a National Agency Check is what most people get done when the enter the military.