Uniforms, AFAMS, and Health Insurance, Oh My!

[billford1]

The thing that I think about is what has an impact on how we can do our ES missions. I wear the BBDU and like it just fine. The concern is what may happen if I get hurt on an actual USAF assigned mission. One of our Wing members was injured on a mission and needed to be hospitalized. He had no insurance coverage of his own. His treatment was delayed for hours because it was difficult to establish his relationship to the USAF and what if any treatment he was eligible for. It took great effort to finally get him treated. Something that may or may not have been debated by the USAF is how to handle cases like this where a CAP mission participant can be identified by the USAF for eligibility for treatment and other support when on USAF Auxiliary business. Has anyone heard discussion about how the USAF considers the operational status of CAP mission members who do not wear a USAF uniform when on USAF business when emergency care for an injured CAP member must be administered?
Edit: Topic after split from Uniform Cmte thread -TA

[mikeylikey]

^ Emergency care should be given no matter if the person has personal insurance or not. 

As far as the insurance issue of whether a member is wearing a CAP corporate or a CAP AF -style is null.  Any member on an AF assigned mission is covered .I don't know where the "have to be in AF-style uniform" came from.

I do believe the member has to send in the hospital bill along with the CAP forms and safety officer's report of investigation to the State Director through the Wing Commander.  The State Director then sends it up channels on the AF side.  I would imagine the AF either pays the hospital directly, or sends the total due back down channels to the member.

[billford1]

Correct that no AF Uniform required to be considered a legitimate mission participant. When you go to the hospital injured on a USAF mission are you recognized as covered by the USAF. The injured member from our wing had no hospitalization insurance and was unprepared for having to get treated when it was explained that he was on a USAF Mission. No member in such circumstances should have to assume part of the financial responsibility for treatment with the requirement that the bills to that individual should then be forwarded to the USAF where the bill would hopefully be paid.  As for the uniform is there a provision for denial of payment for treatment if the CAP member has made a mistake with the composition of their uniform? Just asking

[mikeylikey]

  As for the uniform is there a provision for denial of payment for treatment if the CAP member has made a mistake with the composition of their uniform? Just asking

I do not believe so.  Are they going to deny the member because he wore a white undershirt when he was to be wearing a black undershirt, probably not.  Are they going to deny it if the member was in a AC/DC T-shirt and cutoff's.....I don't know that answer, but logic would dictate that if he was on the mision and signed in, he is covered. 

This would better be answered by the legal beagles here.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If a member is in an authorized CAP uniform, he should be covered.  There is NO provision that persons on AF-funded missions only wear AF uniforms.  The AF allows for both CAP and AF uniforms.

Cutoffs and an AC/DC t-shirt is not a uniform.

How many and how serious do the uniform violations need to be before the person is considered "Out of uniform?" I don't have a definitive answer on that.  I would expect common sense to prevail, and trivial violations would be overlooked.

I know of ONE case where coverage was denied based on a person not being in uniform.  A CAP plane crashed in Indiana, and the CAP-member pilot was wearing jeans and a flannel shirt.  There was also some evidence that he was using the CAP plane in furtherance of his farming business.

[FW]

The only issue about uniforms and insurance coverage I'm aware of is during an AFAM. This regards  FICA, FUTA  coverage.  If you are NOT in a proper CAP uniform, which includes your membership card, the Air Force has been known to decertify the sortie.  This means the member would be denied the above coverage.  I've known about members serving as aircrew who were wearing jeans instead of gray slacks getting no coverage.  However, the member would still be covered by CAP's insurance.

[mikeylikey]

I know of ONE case where coverage was denied based on a person not being in uniform.  A CAP plane crashed in Indiana, and the CAP-member pilot was wearing jeans and a flannel shirt.  There was also some evidence that he was using the CAP plane in furtherance of his farming business.

I can only surmise that his his claim was denied because he was using the Aircraft for some personal use.  I really don't know how the AF would react to the actual clothing being worn by a member if he or she were to get hurt or die on an AFAM.

[Hawk200]

If you are NOT in a proper CAP uniform, which includes your membership card, the Air Force has been known to decertify the sortie.  This means the member would be denied the above coverage.  I've known about members serving as aircrew who were wearing jeans instead of gray slacks getting no coverage.  

A number of us have heard of these occurances, myself included, but noone seems to know any of these people that got denied coverage personally. Anyone actually know someone that this happened to?

BTW, I'm not saying that just because noone has been identified as such that it's OK to wear a uniform improperly. Common sense still applies.

I know of ONE case where coverage was denied based on a person not being in uniform.  A CAP plane crashed in Indiana, and the CAP-member pilot was wearing jeans and a flannel shirt.  There was also some evidence that he was using the CAP plane in furtherance of his farming business.

I can only surmise that his his claim was denied because he was using the Aircraft for some personal use.  I really don't know how the AF would react to the actual clothing being worn by a member if he or she were to get hurt or die on an AFAM.

Doesn't sound like this member was on an actual mission, does it? Wonder how someone would have called that an AFAM? 

On another note, the only missions I've heard of where civvies were allowed were CD, and then only if the agency we were working with requested that uniforms not be worn.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am not sure of the status of the mission.  I don't know if it was an "Unfunded" proficiency flight, a funded corporate mission, or an AFAM.

CAP's insurance carrier also has a provision that the member must be in CAP uniform and all other regs. complied with, or coverage can be denied.

I suspect that the coverage was questioned due to evidence of the improper use of the CAP plane, but was denied based on the more easily-proved issue of the lack of a uniform.

[MIKE]

Drift.

[pixelwonk]

split

[RiverAux]

I think the more important part of the discussion is an apparent need for some sort of documentation that the AF or CAP should provide for members to prove that they are covered in this sort of situation.  Every other insurance program I've heard of issues some specific card and I imagine that military members get something similar for use in civilian hospitals in emergency situations.  Shouldn't we have something similar?

[Smokey]

This was put out by the CAWG State Director in 2004....note the bold especially....
To All,

    Several incidents have highlighted the need for comments on CAP uniforms.  Appropriate wear of CAP uniforms has received increased emphasis from both CAP and the Air Force recently, and one reason for this email is that State Directors have been directed to become more involved in ensuring compliance with Air Force and CAP guidance than we were in the past.  Normally, if we saw problems in the past, we brought them to the attention of the CAP leadership for resolution.  Now the CAP-USAF Commander has directed increased involvement by the liaison staff.  Here are some areas I would like to emphasize:



    1.    If you meet the grooming and weight standards specified in CAPM 39-1, you may wear Air Force style uniforms.

    2.    If you don't meet those standards, you may not wear a military style uniform, whether or not it has any insignia or rank on it.  This may especially concern those who don't meet grooming and/or weight standards who desire the protection provided by NOMEX.  I believe that wearing NOMEX while flying definitely enhances safety, and was concerned that some people would no longer be afforded the opportunity to wear it.  However, I have since discovered (most of you probably already knew) that a blue NOMEX flight suit, that does not have the weight and grooming requirements attached, is available from CAPMART. 
   
    3.    It is important for members of the CAWG to police themselves so those from outside the organization don't need to.  Here are some examples of problems that have been pointed out by Air Force and CAP visitors:
        a.    Flight suits worn with the zipper open more than 1/4 of the way open from the top.
        b.    Flight suits worn with street clothing exposed from the collar and/or the legs
        c.    People wearing the uniform who don't meet CAPM 39-1 weight and/or grooming standards

    4.    Proper wear of Air Force style uniforms is important for several reasons, including the fact that it conveys an image to the public of both CAP and the Air Force.  Most people who are not knowledgeable about the organization assume that CAP members they see in uniform are actually in the military.  If uniform wear is improper, it reflects unfavorably on the Air Force and CAP, while proper wear enhances the image of both organizations and increases the confidence of the people we serve.

    5.      Another important reason for proper wear of the uniform is insurance coverage.   In fact, if you are not in compliance with Paragraph 7-5 of CAPM 39-1 when you fly, you may be denied accident and death benefits by both the Air Force and CAP.  If this happens to you, rest assured that you won't be the first because it has happened in the past.  In order to help ensure nobody gets into this situation, I will deny Air Force mission status to people I see who wear Air Force style uniforms not in compliance with CAP and Air Force directives.  As you know, this will not completely solve the problem because there are many times I will not be in a position to see an aircrew depart on a mission, so it is up to you to ensure you are in compliance for your own protection.  

[isuhawkeye]

During his visit to the Iowa wing last fall Col.  Hodgkins informed the group that the Air Force has NEVER refused mission support, status, or benefits to a CAP member who was not in a proper uniform.

[RiverAux]

I've heard straight from a CAP Regional Commander that denial of coverage has happened before due to uniform issues. 

[FW]

Col. Hodgkins is right.  But, I was told it took a fight to get that "support" back after initial decertification.
Bottom line, as I see it, I won't go out and risk all just to wear what I feel like.  Before I get into an aircraft, I make sure my crew and I are in proper uniform and we have our current membership cards with us.  That is especially so when flying cadet O'flights.

[isuhawkeye]

dont get me wrong I certainly advocate the wear of proper uniforms.

On the topic check this out.

http://isuhawkeye.typepad.com/halbrook_associatescom/2008/01/america-relies.html

[DNall]

Federal coverage is provided by law for CAP members on AFAM. The law says nothing about uniforms. It says must be in compliance with all applicable rules & regulations. That means if you fail to follow rules for flight ops & pile up the airframe, then you aren't covered. But, it also means if you do everything else right but do so w/o a 39-1 required uniform then you'll likewise be denied coverage. It's kind of a no-brainer. Follow the rules & you're good to go, don't & you're screwed.

CAP insurance is paid by AF, and functions in exactly the same way. The only dif is the source of funds/oversight paid in case of an injury, and some very minor differences in coverage. The biggest difference is if it's CAP or AF that could be sued by a third party for the incident. For the actual member, there is no functional difference in AFAM or not.

[RiverAux]

CAP insurance is paid by AF, and functions in exactly the same way. The only dif is the source of funds/oversight paid in case of an injury, and some very minor differences in coverage. The biggest difference is if it's CAP or AF that could be sued by a third party for the incident. For the actual member, there is no functional difference in AFAM or not.

There is a HUGE HUGe HUGE difference between AF and Corp coverage for injuries. 

On an AFAM mission senior members and cadets are fully covered for any medical injury by the feds (CAPR 900-5(D)14(a)) 

On corporate missions or for cadets under 18 on an AFAM, you only get up to $8000 for medical benefits, and you only get that if your own private insurance doesn't fully cover the cost of the injury or you don't have any insurance at all.  (CAPR900-5(E).  In other words, don't count on CAP to help you on corporate missions or if you're a cadet.   

[ddelaney103]

Look, if the only mistake you made was wearing your Spinal Tap t-shirt under your flight suit, you're probably not going to have coverage denied in the event of an accident.  The "applicable rules & regulations" usually pertains to rulebreaking that might have contributed to the accident, such as "are you current?" or "were you flying out of regulations?"

The big word here is "usually."  The gov't has jacked over people before for little reason, such as the "since you're wounded, we'd like your reenlistment bonus back" flap from a month ago.

I think people are blowing this up into urban legend status, but wearing the right uniform can head this thing off at the pass.