A Commission?

[DNall]

Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

Now, just back up a minute. A fresh faced LT pilot in the Army might be a platoon leader on the ground, but he's a co-pilot behind a WO when they strap in, and he does what his "boss" tells him. We all knwo the difference between rank & grade. It's not that uncommon for someone to be in a ranking position but not have the senior grade. It does happen lots more in CAP, but that doesn't change anything.

The other side of that is... just cause that major has done their time & is stepping back doesn't for a minute relieve them of the responsibility to take charge or contribute commensurate with their grade. There is innate responsibility at each level, even if it's denied, and if the person doesn't want to accept it then they are welcome to change insignia.

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation. That said, we do certainly have big behavioral problems in CAP because we're "just civilians & not bound by any force of law." A lot of people around here have proposed making us answerable to the UCMJ, or writing a code that intermingles law & internal policy to hold people accountable to standards along the same lines as the military. I would tend to support something like that. In the meantime, the lack of penalty/enforcability does not relieve you of your responsiblity.

So can someone explain to me the "standard" of grade that has neither authority nor responsibility?  As members of CAP and trained specialist we have professional standards of performance and conduct, but none of it changes based on grade.

On one side of that you're right. It hasn't always been that way & we desperately need to fix it. On another more idealistic side under which a lot of us as officers operate regardless of what the book says, well that's just wrong & we're not willing to tolerate less than what the grade means.

[riffraff]

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

There is no CAP policy that requires CAP officers to involve themselves in military discipline matters. CAP rank carries no weight or authority outside of CAP. To interfere with members of the military, under the pretext of being an 'officer of higher rank', is actually a federal crime. You're far more likely to receive a 2b for impersonating an officer of the armed forces --- which CAP officers are not.

If it's CAP members getting out of line, that's another matter.

[Dragoon]

Usually, we expect more from an officer because they have more responsibility.  This isn't the case in CAP because they may not have any responsibility or authority.

Now, just back up a minute. A fresh faced LT pilot in the Army might be a platoon leader on the ground, but he's a co-pilot behind a WO when they strap in, and he does what his "boss" tells him. We all knwo the difference between rank & grade. It's not that uncommon for someone to be in a ranking position but not have the senior grade. It does happen lots more in CAP, but that doesn't change anything.

The minute those two are back on the ground, guess who's in charge, and who write's whose OER?

The rank inversion in the cockpit or in the operating room is common.  Elsewhere, not so much.  We expect ranking officers to hold positions of authority over those of lesser rank.

The other side of that is... just cause that major has done their time & is stepping back doesn't for a minute relieve them of the responsibility to take charge or contribute commensurate with their grade. There is innate responsibility at each level, even if it's denied, and if the person doesn't want to accept it then they are welcome to change insignia.

Good opinion (and I'd agree), but not how CAP works.  The major who steps down has zero responsiblity and authority.  Zero.

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so.

Again, not how CAP works. I think it SHOULD work that way, but it doesn't.    The regs simply don't support that.  I wish they did, but they don't.


IMHO, CAP would run a lot better if there was inherent authority and responsibility tied to grade, because it would make more folks responsible for keeping things running smoothly.  But it would only work if members had to hold positions equal to their grade, or turn the bars in.  If you give a Lt Col full time authority of Captains, you can't then assign that Lt Col as the full time subordinate to a Captain.  That's just a Catch-22.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If I'm sitting in an airport lobby and I see an Airman, Soldier, Sailor or Marine who is below me in grade getting out of line, I have a duty to try to settle him or her down.  If I don't, I can be held responsible for their actions.  If I go over there in uniform or show my ID, that person knows they have to listen to me or they can get into trouble.

In CAP, I can go over and talk to someone but they won't get into trouble for not listening to some random CAP Major - only those in his chain of command even if they don't "outrank" him.  I have no authority from my grade: therefore, I have no responsibility based on my grade.

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

There is no CAP policy that requires CAP officers to involve themselves in military discipline matters. CAP rank carries no weight or authority outside of CAP. To interfere with members of the military, under the pretext of being an 'officer of higher rank', is actually a federal crime. You're far more likely to receive a 2b for impersonating an officer of the armed forces --- which CAP officers are not.

If it's CAP members getting out of line, that's another matter.

IF I were in uniform at the airport (An unlikely event) and I saw a soldier/sailor/marine/airman/other behaving in an unprofesional manner, I would be in a bit of a quandary.  On one hand, you are correct, I have no legal authority to give an order to stop whatever nonsense is going on.  On the other hand, the couple of hundred people who don't know and don't understand about legal authority are going to see a major taking no action while troopers make fools of themselves.

So, my solution:

1.  Legal authority is meaningless.  Even if I were in my role as an Army officer, I am travelling to one place, the troop is traveling to another, and I cannot, in a practical sense, enforce any order I give.  "Do not order that which you cannot enforce."

2.  This is the difference between "Command authority" and "Leadership."  I would approach the troop, identify myself, and suggest in a friendly way that his/her conduct is not in keeping with the standards of the service.  I would maintain a command presence, hold eye contact, and suggest alternative behaviors (Coffee, for example, instead of more bourbon).

3.  If this did not work, I would advise that there are legal consequences to his behavior.

4.  If the troop STILL failed to modify his/her conduct, and reminded my of my status as a CAP officer who had no command authority over military personnel, I would say something like:  "That is true, Airman, I cannot give you a lawful order.  I can, however, give you sound advice.  I have been trying to do exactly that.  Now, I want you to think about something:  What do you think your commander would do if he got a letter from a major in the Air Force Auxiliary reporting to him that an airman under his command was behaving badly in a public airport?  Do I need to write that letter, or can we, as professionals, agree to act as such?"

Failure to take action in such a case would not subject you to actions in a court of law.  The court of public opinion, however, has completely different rules of evidence.

[RiverAux]

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

I know of a CAP member who "stepped in" to something sort of like this situation and it was involving a CAP member.  And there was a demotion involved -- he got demoted for stepping in. 

[SAR-EMT1]

That's not entirely correct. You do have a responsibility to step in, and should be held accountable for not doing so. That's certainly grounds on a 2b for demotion & is a major safety violation.

I know of a CAP member who "stepped in" to something sort of like this situation and it was involving a CAP member.  And there was a demotion involved -- he got demoted for stepping in. 

My eyebrows are REALLY going up on that one. ... of course, I dont know the story.

[Dragoon]

Ouch.  That's wince inducing.

Course, it may because he stepped in a screwed things up worse.


But I think in general terms "stepping in" should be encouraged. 

I recallreading about a Navy Chaplain who was reprimanded for not stepping in on an airplane to square away some drunk sailors who were harassing the flight attendants.

His defense was (1) "the sailers weren't in my unit" and (2) "I'm just a chaplain."

The response was "You're an officer in the USN.  You had the responsiblity and authority to fix things.  You failed."


Imagine, just imagine, if we held CAP officers to that standard.

[riffraff]

But I think in general terms "stepping in" should be encouraged. 

I recallreading about a Navy Chaplain who was reprimanded for not stepping in on an airplane to square away some drunk sailors who were harassing the flight attendants.

His defense was (1) "the sailers weren't in my unit" and (2) "I'm just a chaplain."

The response was "You're an officer in the USN.  You had the responsiblity and authority to fix things.  You failed."

The big difference is we're not comparing apples to apples. Military members do have the responsibility to intervene in discipline matters involving other military members. However, a military member has zero legal authority to intercede in matters between non-military folks.

Using your naval example, replace the drunken sailors with drunken fisherman and your naval officer will be stepping out of bounds if he attempts to use his military rank in the same capacity of a law enforcement officer.

I'm in no way suggesting that people shouldn't react. Clearly there are moral/ethical grounds to intercede in the example given. However any involvement undertaken would need to be as John Q. Public, concerned citizen and not as J.Q. Public, Major, CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

RiffRaff:

I do not understand your point.

1.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken USAF enlisted member in uniform and takes action to attenuate situation.  Uses persuasion and good leadership skills to attenuate misconduct, and does NOT try to give an unenforceable order.

2.  Situation:  USN Chaplain in uniform sees drunken USN enlisted persons, and FAILS to take action.  He gets spanked, and rightly so.

3.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken CAP members and takes action, but gets spanked for doing so... why?

None of these involve military or CAP guys trying to enforce law on civilians.  I don't understand the "Fishermen" comment.

[riffraff]

RiffRaff:

I do not understand your point.

1.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken USAF enlisted member in uniform and takes action to attenuate situation.  Uses persuasion and good leadership skills to attenuate misconduct, and does NOT try to give an unenforceable order.

2.  Situation:  USN Chaplain in uniform sees drunken USN enlisted persons, and FAILS to take action.  He gets spanked, and rightly so.

3.  Situation:  CAP officer in uniform sees drunken CAP members and takes action, but gets spanked for doing so... why?

None of these involve military or CAP guys trying to enforce law on civilians.  I don't understand the "Fishermen" comment.

1.  Fine so long as it is done as John Q. Public -- aka a concerned citizen. Not fine if the J.Q. Public, Maj, CAP asserts that he has an obligation/duty to deal with the problem due his rank -- i.e. CAP officers have no authority over military personnel.

2.  Failure to act. Very clear cut.

3. I did not make any comments that this was improper. CAP polices itself.

4. I was creating a 4th scenario for comparison purposes, using the USN Chaplain scenario as a basis but substituting drunken fisherman in place of drunken sailors. In this scenario I was attempting to illustrate the USN officers lack of jurisdiction/authority over non-military personnel -- i.e. by virtue of his rank, the USN officer cannot 'order' drunken civilians around.

[mikeylikey]

Anyone can approach military members and say "thank you for your service, but you gentleman (or ladies) are not acting very professional".  I have no problem confronting people, and have in the past without even giving them the hint that I am a military Officer. 

As far as this subject goes......as a CAP member, you know more about the military than an average person (for sake of argument lets agree on that).  You should act appropriately to see that a servicemember is not making an ass of him or herself.  Consider it a civic duty.......you see if you think they are misbehaving, then everyone else around you will most likely notice it too.  No need to be like "I am a CAP Major.....give me your CAC card, I am calling your Commander".  Just act civil, and express your concerns for the actions you saw.


Anyway......what does this relate to Commissions?  You know if they issued Commissions to CAP you would be legally bound to uphold good order and discipline I guess. 

[pixelwonk]

You guys are all vector and no thrust on this one.
It's done.