CAP Talk

Hello,

General Pineda has appointed me as CAP's first Command Chief Master Sergeant.  My goal is to bring back the Non-Commissioned Officer corps, and use them as our armed forces do.  I am interested in finding former military NCOs, however, I will be happy to address any issue you bring to me.  I am starting from scratch and have a difficult job ahead.  I will need all the help and advice you can willing to give.

Wow...an interesting development.

I'm mostly interested in the details of your new position.  If you don't mind sharing in a non-hostile fashion, of course!  :)

I'd like to see what the idea for a CAP NCO corps will be. Only military NCO's or open to all?

On second thought, why bother? 

With all the other background noise in the org, why implement a program which will further divide the members?

How about dissolving the rank structure and we all get to some real work?

Welcome, Chief! That Gorilla Guide to Uniform Wear you wrote is outstanding!

First, could you tell us a little about yourself (AF experience, CAP experience)?

Second, can you give us a little idea what the General's idea for "bring back the NCO corps" means exactly?  I have a problem with proposing solutions when we haven't stated what the problem is we're trying to solve.

As a AF Senior NCO, my major job is to take the "what to do" the officers give me and turn it into the "who and how to do it" I pass to my Airmen.  NCO's in CAP don't have Airmen and supervising officers runs counter to military tradition.  Unless we're treating the Cadets as "Airmen" and the NCO corps is strictly a CP production, there seem to be a lot of questions to be answered.

Dan Delaney
SMSgt, MD ANG
Maj, CAP

ARU

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on December 31, 2006, 06:29:54 PM
Hello,

General Pineda has appointed me as CAP's first Command Chief Master Sergeant.  My goal is to bring back the Non-Commissioned Officer corps, and use them as our armed forces do.  I am interested in finding former military NCOs, however, I will be happy to address any issue you bring to me.  I am starting from scratch and have a difficult job ahead.  I will need all the help and advice you can willing to give.

For what purpose?  Please help us better understand.   How would these new ranks be integrated with existing members?  How does such a role improve our mission capabilities and our relationship with the Air Force?  Expand on the responsibilities you've been tasked with please.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 31, 2006, 07:07:24 PM
First, could you tell us a little about yourself (AF experience, CAP experience)?

Second, can you give us a little idea what the General's idea for "bring back the NCO corps" means exactly?  I have a problem with proposing solutions when we haven't stated what the problem is we're trying to solve.

As a AF Senior NCO, my major job is to take the "what to do" the officers give me and turn it into the "who and how to do it" I pass to my Airmen.  NCO's in CAP don't have Airmen and supervising officers runs counter to military tradition.  Unless we're treating the Cadets as "Airmen" and the NCO corps is strictly a CP production, there seem to be a lot of questions to be answered.

Dan Delaney
SMSgt, MD ANG
Maj, CAP

Thank you...some of my same thoughts as well.

Welcome Chief!

Congratulations on your new position. 

I'm glad to see you here on the board, it's nice to know that someone at the top is willing to listen.  I think you'll find a lot of wisdom in these pages, but also a lot of background noise.

I too am curious as to the function of an NCO Corps within CAP.  I have quite a few questions, but I'll hold them for now as others here have already covered the major ones. 

Was your appointment approved by the BOG?

Am I the onlyl one that never heard anything about this before?  If this is TRUE....then once again it is another CAP Quick Response to a problem that never existed and another change in organization that was not discussed openly.  Please, show me the documentation to back this up! 

What will these NCO's do exactly that is not already being done?  What jobs will be taken from the rest of us and assigned as NCO Only? 

Until I see approval from the BOG, this is no go as far as I am concerned!

Who is this really?

If you are one of those rascal cadets pulling another prank on us, you are going to be in so much trouble even the Cadet Protection Program cannot save you.

Some of us know some very bad people with mob connections.

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on December 31, 2006, 06:29:54 PM
Hello,

General Pineda has appointed me as CAP's first Command Chief Master Sergeant.  My goal is to bring back the Non-Commissioned Officer corps, and use them as our armed forces do.  I am interested in finding former military NCOs, however, I will be happy to address any issue you bring to me.  I am starting from scratch and have a difficult job ahead.  I will need all the help and advice you can willing to give.

Okay, I'll bite. I would be interested in reverting back to the NCO corps with this caveat...There must be in place a means to be promoted up to the rank of E-9.
Mirror the AD NCO corps, but not to the extent that only one or two people can reach E-9, in other words, no cap on limit to the amount of E-9's. Education, training, participation, time in grade, etc. and perhaps even an NCO board for E-7 and up; but everybody must have an equal chance to make the top grade (pun intended).
Otherwise, darn the torpedos--full speed ahead!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 31, 2006, 08:26:30 PM
Who is this really?

Some of us know some very bad people with mob connections.

Gentlemen you are about to meet a real chief: CMSgt Robert Chiafos.  He was the Command Chief for the IAWG until he was summoned  to NHQ by MG Pineda after his IAWG inspection.

I have learned that there is a world of difference between the officer mentality and that of the senior NCO. What we experienced is that our officer corps perform the due diligence, strategic planning, etc...and the Chief and his NCO corps make it happen. 

As you know CAP regs allow NCO's to keep their rank. Those prior NCOs who wish may do so.  As I understand it from talking to the Chief yesterday no structural changes are contemplated to the program at this time.  He will work with those CAP members who voluntarily chose to keep or return to their prior earned NCO rank.

BTW in IAWG we had several who transfered from their 'O" status to an "E" status.

Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on December 31, 2006, 09:21:52 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 31, 2006, 08:26:30 PM
Who is this really?

Some of us know some very bad people with mob connections.

Gentlemen you are about to meet a real chief: CMSgt Robert Chiafos. 

I was about to call bull-fecal too due to the brevity of the post and the grammar error. But some Googling of his e-mail address brought about some real information. Besides, if it was some silly cadet playing tricks, he would have had to have access to the Chief's e-mail address to register the account.

My question is this, is this going to allow new CAP adult members the ability to choose either an Enlisted or Officer path? Or do you need to have been a previous enlisted member of the military to take this grade/role?

Mikeylikey,   NCO grades currently exist in CAP and have always been part of the program. It's just very few that stayed in NCO grades, rather went to the officer side.  Appointing someone as Command Chief Master Sgt is well within the authority of MG Pineda as Commander CAP. The action does not require any approval by the Board of Governors, or the National Board or NEC.

All due respect to the Command Chief; congratulations or condolences?!?!.

Okay I have to say this idea is goofy.  We do not need another rank, insignia, badge, patch or ribbon. This ranks right up there with CAP General Officers and maroon epaulets.

Before you know some USAF Command Chief is going to get his or her nose our of joint and we will have to replace the sleeves on the serive coats with rainbow stripes so that 1000 yards away everyone knows that the Officers and NCO of CAP are not in the Air Force.

Have you ever thought of the idea of a CAP General??? Now don't get me wrong, the folks promoted to CAP General grades are not the issue.

Think about it, a General in charge of an armada of "bug smashers." Can you hear the stories at the O-Club, "Yeah, I was cruising along at 3,000 feet MSL at 105KTS TAS wearing my Black A-2 almost leather jacket on my way to present a kid with some award thing when I took out this huge mesquito like dragon fly thing, it was like flying into Hell! They gave me a ribbon because I washed the bug guts off the plexiglass windscreen after declaring an emergency and getting tugged to the FBO.  What about you Air Force General Dude what was your day like?" Real Air Force General says," That must have been really rough, today I direct the bombing of a hostile land making sure that we had bombs on target, on time and got our aircrews home alive. No big deal,... ...now wait a minute you really got a ribbon for cleaning the aircraft, you must not have any NCOs?" And the idea for CAP NCO's is born! Give that guy another star! Four is not enough how about a red sash with USAF AUX crossed out and Civil Air Patrol scribbled below in CAP Approved magic marker because Vanguard did not ship the new sash even though there is a better more efficient manufacturer with the new sach in stock at a cheaper price.

Come on, the above is tongue in cheek for those without a sense of humor. Isn't there something else more important than making new uniforms and new grade stuctures? How about helping inner city youth stay out of gangs and off drugs, promoting a safe and exciting environment for cadets and adults to experience the magic of aviation. I don't know, what do you think of try to finding a downed pilot! All of these changes for changes sake  is becoming ridiculous. CAP has important things to do!

Bring back the Pickle suit Chief!

Chief Chiafos is the real deal.  I have not ever met a man with more heart and soul to give to any program more than the Chief.

Chief Chiafos is currently the Superintendant of ICAPA (Iowa Civil Air Patrol Academy) and is in charge of shaping the hearts and minds of BOTH the Officers and Cadet's.

I met the Chief a year ago at the 2006 Iowa Wing conference, and he impressed the Fecal matter out of me.  This is a career Air Force Enlisted soldier that would still be with his troops today, if he could be.

Saying that he impressed me says alot.  This is a man, that when he speaks, you ought to listen.  When he approaches you, you better check your own attitude before you check his.  And your uniform.......you best be by the regs.....

Remember.....God loves his CMSgt's.....

One more thing.....before posting....

Check the REG'S!!!!

The NCO corps is still alive in CAP!!

I refer to the following regs for your reference....

CAPR 35-5

"SECTION F- NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER GRADES
27. General. This section prescribes the requirements and procedures for appointment to CAP noncommissioned officer (NCO) grades.
28. Eligibility requirements.
a. Only those CAP members who are military or ex-military NCOs and do not wish to be considered for CAP officer grades may be appointed to a CAP NCO grade under provisions of this section. The CAP grade granted will be equivalent to the grade held in the active duty military, Reserve or National Guard."

Thanks!!

I just do not see a need in this.  What will this accomplish?  Lets focus on what we have now and drive on.  TP needs to be focusing on declining membership, and money.  I guess this means we are in store for about a zillion new uniform changes!

If the only plan is to allow current and former military chiefs to step back to their enlisted grade, this is a silly idea.

It won't change our mission, or command structure.

The do-ers in CAP today are the doers in CAP, regardless of ribbons, grade or stripes.

Those not versed in the RealMilitary® will not understand the nuances, and will use it as another excuse to try and boss people around.

What good is being an NCO if you have no enlisted to supervise?  And since CAP autthority comes from staff position, not grade, what difference could it make?

As noted, more places to cause confusion, increase cost, and hack off the USAF.

This has nothing to do with whether Chief Chiafos is a good leader and everything to do with the direction of the program, and whether we are ever going to stop worrying about jackets, grade, and other non-essentials, and turn are eyes back on readiness and proficiency, none of which is going to be impacted in the least by an NCO corps.

The RealMilitary® builds leaders, expects participation and performance, and makes people "go away" when they are non-performers.

As is painfully obvious on these boards, most CAP units are begging members just to show up, which is not exactly a "perfomance environment".

Respiration, gravitational attraction, and basic attendance are all that is required to be a shining star in some parts of this org.

Until that changes, nothing else will.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2006, 09:59:05 PM
If the only plan is to allow current and former military chiefs to step back to their enlisted grade, this is a silly idea.

It won't change our mission, or command structure.

The do-ers in CAP today are the doers in CAP, regardless of ribbons, grade or stripes.

Those not versed in the RealMilitary® will not understand the nuances, and will use it as another excuse to try and boss people around.

What good is being an NCO is you have no enlisted to supervise?  And since CAP autthority comes from staff position, not grade, what difference could it make?

As noted, more places to cause confusion, increase cost, and hack off the USAF.

This has nothing to do with whether Chief Chiafos is a good leader and everything to do with the direction of the program, and whether we are ever going to stop worrying about jackets, grade, and other non-essentials, and turn are eyes back on readiness and proficiency, non of which is going to be impacted in the least by an NCO corps.

The RealMilitary® builds leaders, expects participation and performance, and makes people "go awat" when they are non-performers.

As is painfully obvious on these boards, most CAP units are begging members just to show up, which is not exactly a "perfomance environment".

Respiration, gravitational attraction, and basic attendance are all that is required to be a shining star in some parts of this org.

Until that changes, nothing else will.

I concur to a point.

Chief, please talk with NHQ about promoting through the NCO ranks, change the structure (they've changed so much already). You have another potential NCO here with all the sass that goes with it (life member NCOA). But I'll not bite if the NCO corps is stagnant, might as well stay an officer, already bought all the bling...

Is anyone else reminded of the movie "Airplane?"

Dr. Rumack: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine Dickinson: Well, we had a choice: steak or fish.
Dr. Rumack: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.

Although I don't think you need an NCO specifically for this job in CAP, having someone representing the rank and file membership with access to the top dog in any unit can be helpful. 

I have to agree. What does CAP need an NCO Corps for? Like was said earlier, we dont have junior enlisted people to manage or supervise. If a former NCO wants to keep his rank in CAP thats fine, but I dont think we need an "official" NCO Corps with a Chief for the National CC like AF command structures have. We are just not orhganized like an AF Wing or AF Command. Senior NCO's are basically enlisted advisors to the commander on issues affecting the troops. ANd as was stated they are the "make it happen" folks. Well, CAP doiesnt have troops and we all make it happen as a team already.

Now, I could see having a senior cadet advisor to commanders. That would be the best idea. A cadet (most likely a Spaatz) to adivse commanders on issue affecting cadets in their respective wings and regions. I could see that but a Senior NCO advisor? I just dont see the need.

Welcome Chief. Forgive the shock on the part of our members. We've all toiled away here on ideas we wish we could get some action on, and here you come asking for input. It's just counter to everything we've come to know - and refreshing.

Bill, It's creating a grade outside regs & promoting an NCO. That would need to be an emergency to fall under a policy letter, and of course the letter. I'm more concerned that the AF get a heads up, especially after we self-promoted to Maj Gen.

My views: To the point. I think the NCO system we have now is a waste of time, which makes the officer grades a waste of time as well. During the first two-thirds of CAP's history it had a real enlisted corps taking civilians off the street & working up thru the ranks, officers didn't walk off the street & pin on six months later like this joke of a system we have now. I'm a strong supporter of creating an enlisted corps mirroring the AF, and restricting officer grades to a more limited number & a competitive process w/ near AF requirements. None of this is news to anyone around here having seen those conversations from me several times.

Let me put that a bit more clearly... If the path you're on works within the current system to illustrate the need for an NCO corps across the org, provides for promotions along near-AF standards, gives voice to members into the command structure (1Sgt style), then down the road assists current CAP/NCOs in welcoming civilians to their ranks by meeting training & professional standards on par w/ the AF & in doing so help fix our screwed up officer corps... down that road I'm with ya 100%. On the other hand, if you're merely looking for members to choose to put on NCO grade in a system where grade has dropped to near meaningless, and you have no greater aspiration then that, well then you have my support, but I'm not sure I see the point either.

I think it would help if you spoke briefly on your & the Gen's vision for this. Also, have you had a chance to touch base w/ the CCMSgt Ellison at AETC or CMSAF? Any NCO effort we make, even within the current system, will be transformational. I'd like to stay in-tune with the AF NCO side, & especially their links to the top, as we seek to evolve to meet future missions & challenges together as a team w/ AF. I know Air Staff is very interested in strategic thinking on CAP. I think you have a unique opportunity in front of you & I look forward to helping in any way I can.


Now just a random swing at the gallery, nothing personal sir...

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on December 31, 2006, 09:42:42 PM
Come on, the above is tongue in cheek for those without a sense of humor. Isn't there something else more important than making new uniforms and new grade structures? How about helping inner city youth stay out of gangs and off drugs, promoting a safe and exciting environment for cadets and adults to experience the magic of aviation. I don't know, what do you think of try to finding a downed pilot! All of these changes for changes sake  is becoming ridiculous. CAP has important things to do!

We indoctrinate youth & give them the tools to succeed in potential military service, EVERYTHING else is bonus, & bonus is good, but it isn't our job. That AF doesn't pay for anti-gang program - DDR sure when it's their kids you're talking about, but they aren't the social service center for the country, and neither are we (especially not with their money). The same is true of our other missions. AE builds public support for a strong air & space budget - why else would the AF pay for it? ES is about doing an AF task cheaply so those funds can pay for another round of bombing practice before you go to war, or oh I don't know maybe the F22 program that we've saved enough in the history of CAP to pay for. That's what CAP is about, and everything else is bonus. Don't get caught up & tunnel vision on the bonus.

Grade has degraded (pun intended) to near meaningless cause we've made it that way cause we - animal house style "need the dudes."  Retention is a result of bad leadership & mgmt, which is also to blame for not stepping into more significant roles in defense of the nation, which is also a primary retention issue. Grade isn't about titles any more than it matters what you call a CEO. It's about fixing the people side of CAP so we can be of service to our country. What we're doing is important, what we potentially can do is even more important, our job is about fixing our issues so we can do this thing the best it can be done. That's what these things are about, just as a matter of perspective.

What we're doing IS the important stuff, but we're doing it poorly, or at least not up to our potential.

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 31, 2006, 07:52:17 PM
Am I the onlyl one that never heard anything about this before?  If this is TRUE....then once again it is another CAP Quick Response to a problem that never existed and another change in organization that was not discussed openly.  Please, show me the documentation to back this up! 

What will these NCO's do exactly that is not already being done?  What jobs will be taken from the rest of us and assigned as NCO Only? 

Until I see approval from the BOG, this is no go as far as I am concerned!

What?  Are you saying the National Commander cannot create a new staff position with out BOG approval?

GODS...guys....come on!

The National Commander is looking into creating an NCO corps and appointed a CMSgt to head it up and gave him a fancy title.  You don't need BOG approval for that!

Quote from: DNall on December 31, 2006, 10:36:31 PM
Welcome Chief. Forgive the shock on the part of our members. We've all toiled away here on ideas we wish we could get some action on, and here you come asking for input. It's just counter to everything we've come to know - and refreshing.

Bill, It's creating a grade outside regs & promoting an NCO. That would need to be an emergency to fall under a policy letter, and of course the letter. I'm more concerned that the AF get a heads up, especially after we self-promoted to Maj Gen.

My views: To the point. I think the NCO system we have now is a waste of time, which makes the officer grades a waste of time as well. During the first two-thirds of CAP's history it had a real enlisted corps taking civilians off the street & working up thru the ranks, officers didn't walk off the street & pin on six months later like this joke of a system we have now. I'm a strong supporter of creating an enlisted corps mirroring the AF, and restricting officer grades to a more limited number & a competitive process w/ near AF requirements. None of this is news to anyone around here having seen those conversations from me several times.

Let me put that a bit more clearly... If the path you're on works within the current system to illistrate the need for an NCO corps across the org, provides for promotions along near-AF standards, gives voice to members into the command structure (1Sgt style), then down the road assists current CAP/NCOs in welcoming civilians to their ranks by meeting training & professional standards on par w/ the AF & in doing so help fix our screwed up officer corps... down that road I'm with ya 100%. On the other hand, if you're merely looking for members to choose to put on NCO grade in a system where grade has dropped to near meaningless, and you have no greater aspiration then that, well then you have my support, but I'm not sure I see the point either.

I think it would help if you spoke breifly on your & the Gen's vision for this. Also, have you had a chance to touch base w/ the CCMSgt Ellison at AETC or CMSAF? Any NCO effort we make, even within the current system, will be transformational. I'd like to stay in-tune with the AF NCO side, & especially their links to the top, as we seek to evolve to meet future missions & challenges together as a team w/ AF. I know Air Staff is very interested in strategic thinking on CAP. I think you have a unique opportunity in front of you & I look forward to helping in any way I can.

Well said.

Welcome Chief, looks like you have your work cut out for you. I look forward to seeing how this works out.

Welcome Chief:

Sorry about the "Rascal cadet" remark, but if you're not up to a little ribbing now and then, you won't be very happy on these boads.  Or at Maxwell, for that matter.

Our reaction points out something that has been noted before here.  There is NO top-down communication.  There is no "Commander's intent" communicated to the do-ers from the think-ers and tell-ers.

IF MG TP has a vision for where he's trying to take our happly little band of warriors, he has yet to clarify it to us.  Hence, when something does happen -- like a new program for NCO's -- there is skepticsim and speculation as to motives.

And yes, your work IS cut out for you.

Chief, welcome aboard and congratulations on being the first in a much need transformation of Civil Air Patrol.

I would gladly shed these oak leaves to return to my enlisted rank.  I am interested and concerned about a stagnated NCO Corps that has no room for true growth.

Count me in for any assistance you need.  Just shoot me an email.

Although there isn't any such position officially in the regulations the Nat Cdr has authority to create any national committee he wants.  Additionally, he regs are pretty vague on what positions are authorized within national headquarters.  So, I don't see any particular problem here. 

Quote from: lordmonar on December 31, 2006, 10:38:20 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 31, 2006, 07:52:17 PM
Am I the onlyl one that never heard anything about this before?  If this is TRUE....then once again it is another CAP Quick Response to a problem that never existed and another change in organization that was not discussed openly.  Please, show me the documentation to back this up! 

What will these NCO's do exactly that is not already being done?  What jobs will be taken from the rest of us and assigned as NCO Only? 

Until I see approval from the BOG, this is no go as far as I am concerned!

What?  Are you saying the National Commander cannot create a new staff position with out BOG approval?

GODS...guys....come on!

The National Commander is looking into creating an NCO corps and appointed a CMSgt to head it up and gave him a fancy title.  You don't need BOG approval for that!

Yes, he does...

An NCO Corps isn't going to just happen because CAPFLT001 thinks its a good idea.

Anything more than simply appointing a figurehead for all the exisitng military NCO's who choose to keep their existing grade will require:

A full plan, including transition, required professional development, and
transition from the exiting system.

Certain jobs will be for "enlisted" and certain will not.

Unifrm changes will have to be approved by the NEC and BOG, as well as the USAF, and insignia created - we can't just wear their patches, nor would most seniors be happy wearing exisitng cadet insignia.

An NCO Corps, good or bad, would radically change the existing structure of the organization with no tangible benefit to the members or the mission.

This is not something which will just "happen".

We are a corporation with a board of directors, the "CEO" has limited powers, mostly to implement emergency policy.

It is one thing to appoint a RealMilitary® Command Chief to a staff role - it requires no relief of regs, insignia are already approved, and there is no special authority granted.

It is a whole 'nother thing to take someone off the street and call them and NCO.

To call us all "officers" is a stretch in and of itself, but to further subdivide the org "just because", well.  Again, no one here has suggested "why?".

The RealMilitary® is divided between enlisted and commisioned officers for legal reasons related to the rules of war, the Geneva Convention and related issues.

How is that related to CAP?

Well... Overwhelmed already!  I will try to answer each of you as best as I can and stay on focus.  Sorry for the fat fingered typos.

I am a former cadet (1961-1965) and returned to CAP to try and repay it for the many good things it gave me in my youth.  I spent 27-years in the Air Force, both active and reserve duty.  I am a Vietnam, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and War on Terror veteran.  The last 18-years of my service I was a Special Agent in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).

The tone of some replies here are very disheartening, but not unexpected.  They are primary examples of how we got tagged as the "Silly Air Patrol", an image that humiliates all who care deeply about our organization.  Small-minded negativity is a cancer on CAP and eats away our relationship with the Air Force, and our credibility with the public.  Mark Twain once observed: "Its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."  Having said that, I embrace thoughtful criticism, regardless of source, and will work hard to fairly resolve problems and issues fairly brought to me.

General Pineda visited Iowa and liked what he saw, particularly the NCO Corps.  He asked if I was willing to accept a Command Chief's (CCM) position, and help bring some of those good things to all of CAP.  I received a reassignment order from NHQ dated 14 Nov 06.  Has the BOG approved it?  I don't know, but I do know I don't require yours.  I know that General Pineda is controversial, he has detractors and supporters – I am neither.  I am here to serve CAP, its people, and missions.  I made that clear to General Pineda, and I am doing so with you.  I am your portal to headquarters, I represent you, and you need to use that line of communications.

When I took the CCM position I did so with clear eyes – this is going to be hard, very hard.  I read the CAP Charter and other organizational documents.  I was stunned!  CAP was intentionally organized to be in a constant vegetative state – absolute paralysis!  The Commander has no authority, but is held accountable for everything.  The BOG holds all the authority, but cannot be held accountable by anyone.  As a result CAP is has all the operational attributes of a drunken paranoid schizophrenic – but none of the benefits, whatever those might be.  It is my, our, job as NCOs to impose order on the chaos.

Sure, CAP has long accommodated NCOs, but doesn't know what to do with us.  The NCO Corps will be consolidated into a new specialty track; managed entirely by the NCOs themselves.  That removes us from the control of headquarters, petty politics, and the booby traps of the unending guerrilla warfare that goes on in CAP.  The track will be "closed" that is, if you were not an NCO in the US armed forces, you cannot be an NCO in CAP.  The rationale is simple: prior service NCOs are already trained and experienced, and we must be perceived, both in and out of CAP, as "real" NCOs, or we have no credibility.  This is vital to improving our relationship with the Air Force. But that does not preclude opening the track in the future to civilians who can be properly trained.

The NCO in CAP will do what the NCO does in the military: speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability, enforce standards in wear of the uniform, customs and courtesies, conduct military formations and ceremonies, mentor officers with leadership skills, and advise commanders in the better interests of CAP, its people, and missions.  This is the road to true professionalism.

I cannot let our relationship with the Air Force go unaddressed.  CAP is the crazy bother-in-law kept locked in the basement – we have humiliated them once too often.  In 2000, after the OSI investigation of CAP (yes, I was the superintendent of that investigation, and personally briefed General Newton, the Air Force IG, on it weekly), the Air Force went to Congress to change the CAP Charter.  We are no longer the FULL TIME auxiliary of the Air Force; we are its auxiliary ONLY when on an Air Force mission.  The writing has been on the wall, but no one is reading it.  Our future is in doubt.  There are dozens of private SAR organizations drooling over the prospect of our demise.  We must change, change profoundly, and do it soon.

It will be a privilege to serve you and CAP.  Below is a draft of the NCO code of conduct

THE NON-COMISSIONED OFFICER CORPS

NON-COMMISIONED OFFICERS CODE OF CONDUCT


As a Non-Commissioned Officer my sole occupation is the good order and welfare of Civil Air Patrol, its people, and missions – to the exclusion of all else.  I will embrace accountability for myself and demand it from others.  I will lead by example, and truly embody the core values, which set the NCO apart from all others: for I am first, and last, a military professional.

Integrity First:  I am the ethical conscious of Civil Air Patrol. My ability to lead is based on moral authority.  All I say and do shall be founded in honesty.  I will defend the truth regardless of popular sentiment.  I will not engage in, or become party to, petty politics, personal disputes, and other controversies that demean Civil Air Patrol's integrity, or soil its public image and respect. I will confront those with personal agendas harmful to Civil Air Patrol, its people, and missions.  My character cannot be bought, sold, or intimidated.

Service Before Self:  The non-commissioned officer corps is an uncommon profession calling for people of uncommon dedication.  I will put the welfare of Civil Air Patrol, its people, and missions above all else.  And on that principle, I will set aside personal opinion and bias, to advise commanders truthfully and offer honest guidance.  I will mentor company grade officers and instill in them the practice of leadership and fairness.  I will set a professional military example for all cadets to follow - I am here to serve, not to be served.

Excellence In All I Do:  Excellence is not a goal, it is my professional standard, and anything less is unacceptable.  My grooming and uniform appearance will be flawless.  My military bearing and conduct will display the best traditions of the NCO at all times.  I will bring to Civil Air Patrol all the skills, training, and experience seasoned by service in the United States armed forces.  I will apply that knowledge for the betterment of Civil Air Patrol and its individual members.

Well, that looks great on paper.

How, exactly is a closed-loop group of NCOS, with no command authority or their units, and no one to supervise except themselves going to enhance our ability to perform our missions?

What, specifically do you intend to DO, or are doing today in IAWG?

I think it also needs to be said, that what is happening in IAWG is commendable - a herculean effort that works in IAWG.

It doesn't scale, and can't be duplicated in states that don't have a benevolent relationship with the guard.

Just curious but if this is an "official" thing, Why hasnt a notice been posted   on the CAP website?

wait a minute. Maybe I am getting terms confused here. You said you were on orders to NHQ. So, you are acting in the capacity of an UASF NCO. I was under the impression you were acting as a volunteer CAPer like me. If youare on "orders", well, thats a whole different story.

Chief,

I applaud your courage to stand up on stage and be pelted with tomatoes.   At the moment I do not have an opinion on an NCO corps but I do agree with you that our relationship with the AF is in jeopardy due to the actions of some within CAP.

As was pointed out by Kack.....everyone is automatically skeptical because TP has never told anyone where this ship is headed.  Why is it we hear about your position and the program here on a blog and from you? TP has made numerous changes, initiated programs, uniforms, name changes, etc. without warning.  Most of the stuff is just sprung on us and we don't know why or where we are headed.

I can't perform a mission if I don't know what the mission is.....and right now I can't tell what CAPs mission is.

For the rest of the folks.....the Chief did not seek this assignment or position (from what he has told us) but is striving to do the best he can with what has been put on the plate in front of him.  Let's not kill the poor guy.   His second post clears up some of the information missing from his original post.  His heart seems to be in the right place.  I strongly suggest a CIVIL discussion of this without attacks on the Chief.

Flyguy
You are confusing NHQ with HQCAP-USAF.  National Headquarters at Maxwell AFB is both CAP and CAP-USAF Headquarters.  A CAP member can be assigned to NHQ and be on the corporate side of the house.

Quote from: BillB on January 01, 2007, 12:51:54 AM
Flyguy
You are confusing NHQ with HQCAP-USAF.  National Headquarters at Maxwell AFB is both CAP and CAP-USAF Headquarters.  A CAP member can be assigned to NHQ and be on the corporate side of the house.

Bottom line question for me is is he a volunteer like me or is he a paid emplyee. That makes a difference. If he is a paid employee then cool. I undertsand but if he is a volunteer than my original question stands.

Nobody is trying tobeat hom up personally. Like was said, he didnt seek the position, but he did seek to post onthis board, I just havent heard anything official yet. I mean come on, this is just s message board. Anyone can log in and post anything they want. Please understand my skeptisism. I am a cop. Everything is suspect until proven or verifified. This is big news, I personally think it would have been anouced through the official CAP website, or downthe chaing of comand

The chief is an unpaid professional

Welcome Chief! I actually ran across your name in this position a few weeks ago when I looked through the CAP Directory (page 12-2 of the December 2006 version) but didn't know what this meant. Glad to have someone of your professionalism, background and experience here to make a  positive difference on the national scale. Good luck, and I do hope you get some positive and constructive input from this forum.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Sacramento Composite Squadron 14

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 12:10:38 AM
Sure, CAP has long accommodated NCOs, but doesn't know what to do with us.  The NCO Corps will be consolidated into a new specialty track; managed entirely by the NCOs themselves.  That removes us from the control of headquarters, petty politics, and the booby traps of the unending guerrilla warfare that goes on in CAP.  The track will be "closed" that is, if you were not an NCO in the US armed forces, you cannot be an NCO in CAP.  The rationale is simple: prior service NCOs are already trained and experienced, and we must be perceived, both in and out of CAP, as "real" NCOs, or we have no credibility.  This is vital to improving our relationship with the Air Force. But that does not preclude opening the track in the future to civilians who can be properly trained.

The NCO in CAP will do what the NCO does in the military: speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability, enforce standards in wear of the uniform, customs and courtesies, conduct military formations and ceremonies, mentor officers with leadership skills, and advise commanders in the better interests of CAP, its people, and missions.  This is the road to true professionalism.

CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY.  Great that you were an NCO, it is great we have prior service members in CAP that can lend thier experiances and leadership to the organization.  My Question...What makes an NCO any better at advising commanders on CAPs missions, interests, people then say a "non-NCO"?
I speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability and enforce standards.  Why do I need an NCO at my side?
Simply put, I command a Field Artillery Battery in the Army, I have subordinate NCO's that do what you are speaking of.  I need them for the unit to function accordingly.  However, that world is SO MUCH different than CAP.

You made one mistake in your entire discussion.  You said " This is vital to improving our relationship with the Air Force. But that does not preclude opening the track in the future to civilians who can be properly trained" 
Never forget even if you are an NCO, in CAP you are a civilian like the rest of us.  How would creating a closed specialty not creat the appearance of an "elite society" within the organization?  How would those of us who wanted to be NCO's and were not in the military be trained?  I will tell you what, I have met my fair share of CAP NCO's that do not know the first thing about CAP, and go through the motions, without adding anything.

I feel this COULD turn out to be a tremenous waste of time and resources.  Like others have said, it may work in Iowa, but seriously, Iowa is not a representation of the entire CAP. 

Finally you say you are our portal to NHQ.  How exactly?  Last time I looked I already have my chain of command.  You quote the military use of NCO's, how then would my portal of communication be through an NCO.  I am an officer, shouldn't it be directed the way it has been for the last twenty or so years?  Never needed a Chief before.  I guess when it is all in place, I will go to my NCO, and ask him or her  "if you have time can you pass my concerns up your NCO grapevine".   

THIS is not an attack against  Chief Chiafos or what he is selling us.  I wish him all the luck at getting this started. 

I for one will remain skeptical, BUT WILL SUPPORT WHATEVER COMES DOWN THE CHAIN AND ALLOW IT FAIL ON IT'S OWN!   

It was not my preference to make an "official" CCM appearance in this forum.  I had requested space on the CAP website, the Volunteer magazine, and other venues.  But, so far that hasn't happened, so I can appreciate any skepticism you may have.  It wasn't my intention to 'announce' anything here, but to begin a search for willing NCOs, and open a dialog.

What the NCOs bring to CAP is military discipline and professionalism, something CAP is in dire need of.  Most of our members have no military experience and as time has gone by CAP gets less and less recognizable as a military organization.  And, like it or not, civilian volunteers or not, it is in fact, paramilitary.  If I see one more cadet squadron reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, instead of standing at attention, saluting the flag, to the notes of To The Colors, or the National Anthem, I shall run screaming naked down the street.

True military training, the kind the Air Force and the public expect to see, is nearly nonexistent.  This is the root cause of nearly all of CAP's image problems.  In the uniformed services the NCOs are the custodians of military training, discipline, and tradition; they are the glue binding a unit together: elevating its morale, infusing cohesion, demanding discipline, and focusing on mission purpose.  We must do no less if we are ever to regain organizational integrity and self-respect as members. CAP NCOs, at all levels, will do that training.

The goal of the NCO corps is to transform CAP's culture into an elite, professional, and polished, military search and rescue organization, envied by our counterparts, and championed with pride by the Air Force.  We have chosen, by benign neglect, to become and accept what we are.  All that can be changed with vision, determination, and the will to get it done.

CAP NCOs will be assigned according to a manning document established for wing, group and squadrons, at rank commensurate to the assignments.  The Chief's will form a "Chiefs Group" to manage the NCOs, train them, establish a promotion system, approve applicants, and remove NCOs for proper cause.  This program will not be for every former NCO.  They must comply with the NCO code of Conduct, and many former NCOs here in Iowa have turned me down because of strict requirements.

I cannot do this alone.  I need the help of former NCOs who want to transform CAP with a vision for our future.

Who will these NCO's report to in the SQD, Group and Wing structures?  Will it be the Chief outside the normal chain of command or will it be within the existing COC?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2007, 12:03:10 AMYes, he does...

An NCO Corps isn't going to just happen because CAPFLT001 thinks its a good idea.

Anything more than simply appointing a figurehead for all the exisitng military NCO's who choose to keep their existing grade will require:

A full plan, including transition, required professional development, and
transition from the exiting system.

Certain jobs will be for "enlisted" and certain will not.

Unifrm changes will have to be approved by the NEC and BOG, as well as the USAF, and insignia created - we can't just wear their patches, nor would most seniors be happy wearing exisitng cadet insignia.

An NCO Corps, good or bad, would radically change the existing structure of the organization with no tangible benefit to the members or the mission.

This is not something which will just "happen".

We are a corporation with a board of directors, the "CEO" has limited powers, mostly to implement emergency policy.

It is one thing to appoint a RealMilitary® Command Chief to a staff role - it requires no relief of regs, insignia are already approved, and there is no special authority granted.

It is a whole 'nother thing to take someone off the street and call them and NCO.

To call us all "officers" is a stretch in and of itself, but to further subdivide the org "just because", well.  Again, no one here has suggested "why?".

The RealMilitary® is divided between enlisted and commisioned officers for legal reasons related to the rules of war, the Geneva Convention and related issues.

How is that related to CAP?

Jesus Bob!

The guy just appointed to the job to come up with all of those answers.  Go back and look at the Chief's first post!

But instead of sending in any good information or even asking what sort of information was being looked for you started questioning the National Commander's authroity to appoint a POC and do a study!

Get your head out of your ass for 30 whole seconds, would you!

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey,

Wow, you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.  How can you put on a military uniform and then claim your not military in nature? Is that what you say to every passer-by while your wearing it - "excuse me ma'm I'm not really in the military".  Perhaps CAP ought to subsitiute the name on our name tags with "Not Really In The Military"!  This is the very schizophrenia that is the ruination of CAP.  For some one who claims to have commanded a military unit you seem to have little knowledge of the NCO or how one plugs into an organization.  My question to you is: can you bring something positive into this converastion.  If you can't then its time for you to rethink wether or not you really belong in CAP.

Eclipse
What uniform changes?  Read 39-1, the changes you talk about have been in the regulation for years. CAP NCOs wear the standard USAF grade insignia and placement. So what uniform changes are you talking about?

Welcome Chief.  As you can tell there, is not shortage of opinions here.

I'm a former Army NCO and TSgt with the Seattle Composite Squadron.  I would welcome any and all guidance posted here.

Best regards,

Ronald G. Kruml, TSgt, CAP
Public Affairs NCO
Seattle Composite Squadron PCR-WA-018
http://www.capseattlesquadro.org
pcrwa018@earthlink.net

Chief,

As an active duty USAF MSgt, I got to say...I think this idea is already a looser.

If we restrict this "specialty" track to just previous NCO's...who are we going to "speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability, enforce standards in wear of the uniform, customs and courtesies, conduct military formations and ceremonies, mentor officers with leadership skills, and advise commanders in the better interests of CAP, its people, and missions." to all the regular CAP officers?

I mean I have a hard enough time convincing young USAF 2d Lt's that mentoring them is in fact one of my jobs....how am I going to convince some CAP Captain that he has got to listen to me?

We already have a system of rank that is confusing to say the least.  We have SFO's with more leadership ability in their little pinky than some of the Lt Cols but they can't even wear 2d Lt rank.  We got Lts commanding squadrons with Lt Cols in them that are ex-active duty generals! (my squadron has two generals!)

On my first take of this program, is that we are going to create a sort of club or clique inside of CAP that will be doing it's own thing.  How are these members going to integrate with the daily running of the squadron?

The make up of my squadron (the Nellis Senior Squadron) would put these NCO's mentoring men and women who are usually older then them...may already have greater rank, more experience and training than them.

I simply don't see a need for them.

I do see a need for SNCOs who are in charge of the cadets.  This is about the only place where they have a natural place in CAP.

So unless we are thinking of a major change to the CAP rank structure (and if you check out this site you can see several different suggestions) that places the rank and file CAP membership under these NCO's I don't see how this can work.

I will keep and open mind and would like to see what ideas you and National have of the subject.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2006, 11:38:41 PM
Although there isn't any such position officially in the regulations the Nat Cdr has authority to create any national committee he wants.  Additionally, he regs are pretty vague on what positions are authorized within national headquarters.  So, I don't see any particular problem here. 

No one's disputing that, just use of the grade - which is 100% appropriate in this situation & very well advised to facilitate communication w/ the AF side just for starters. There's a tiny administrative matter of following regs/bylaws is all. That's a whole other topic seperate from what chief is doing here though, so might I respectfully suggest we drop it or take that to another thread?

With all due respect to the good chief, I remain far more than skeptical; I'm frankly cynical. Frankly, regardless of the CV our new CCM and his seemingly sincere and ever-so-good intentions, I see this as little more than another moving about of the "deck chairs" ... this time from port to starboard adjacent to the shuffleboard on the lido deck.

This won't change the writinbg on the wall. What CAP needs are REAL changes, not another person with yet another title.

What's next ... maybe an order of knights or a hereditary nobility?

Quote from: BillB on January 01, 2007, 02:42:54 AM
Eclipse
What uniform changes?  Read 39-1, the changes you talk about have been in the regulation for years. CAP NCOs wear the standard USAF grade insignia and placement. So what uniform changes are you talking about?

Not quite.

Active, Reserve, Guard, and retired NCO's can wear the USAF stripes if they choose to display their NCO grade instead of accepting a CAP Officer appointment.

I seriously doubt the USAF would allow non-military "CAP NCO's" to wear USAF stripes, anymore than we can wear metal / subdued grade today.

That means NEC, BOG, & USAF approval of alternate insignia before it goes near BDU's or blues.

However, it doesn't even appear that this is what is being proposed.

The Chief has said here he would simply be the highest-grade NCO of those NCO's who choose not to accept CAP apointments.

So if that's the case, then no insignia alteration, etc., is necessary, but it also seems like a spurious idea.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 01, 2007, 02:33:46 AM
Jesus Bob!

The guy just appointed to the job to come up with all of those answers.  Go back and look at the Chief's first post!

But instead of sending in any good information or even asking what sort of information was being looked for you started questioning the National Commander's authroity to appoint a POC and do a study!

Get your head out of your ass for 30 whole seconds, would you!

The Chief drops into a heated forum like this, where the size of a member's wings are debated like it was life or death, and CAPFLT001's shoe size is called into question on a regular basis, declares that he was appointed to a position which does not officially exist, in command of a corps that was phased out of existence (in CAP) 20+ years ago and I get grief for questioning the legitamacy?

Who said this was a study?  Its being presented as a done deal, with the one RealMilitary® aspect of the idea being that no one asked the rank and file.

This is the kitchen, its hot in here.  You do the math.

And for what its worth, owing to the difficulties he has had getting space on offcial venues like cap.gov, and the Volunteer, Captalk would NOT be the place I would have planted the flag.

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 02:40:24 AM
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey,

Wow, you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.  How can you put on a military uniform and then claim your not military in nature? Is that what you say to every passer-by while your wearing it - "excuse me ma'm I'm not really in the military".  Perhaps CAP ought to subsitiute the name on our name tags with "Not Really In The Military"!  This is the very schizophrenia that is the ruination of CAP.  For some one who claims to have commanded a military unit you seem to have little knowledge of the NCO or how one plugs into an organization.  My question to you is: can you bring something positive into this converastion.  If you can't then its time for you to rethink wether or not you really belong in CAP.

When I am doing CAP business, I am not in the military.  There are those of us who wish (I am one) that CAP were more like the military but it is not.  It was never supposed to be the military.  I am not the one demilitarizing the CAP.  IT is your BOSS and the Corporate Big Wigs at NHQ.  They have moved the CAP further and further away from the AF.  Compare the organization twenty years ago to what it is today.  Huge differences.  You have been a member, you can see the changes.
  I hope you can bring the CAP-AF relationship closer together than it has ever been.  I would do whatever was asked of me to support that.  However, I take offense to your comments.  Who the heck are you to outright say someone should rethink thier future in CAP because he or she does not agree with what you are going to be doing.  I fully understand the nature and function of an NCO.  Before I was commissioned, those men and women taught me the leadership neccessary to function in the Army.  Today I work side by side with them and have gone to war with them.  However, I also understand that in the end they work for me (the officer).  Let's not loose sight of that.  If we are going to change the NCO corps in CAP to mimick the military, what will you do about that situation?  From what I have read it seemed that you wanted to make the NCO structure seperate from the officer stucture.  I may be reading into too many posts, but that was the impression I got from it.

Like I said before, I will support whatever you do, and what comes from NHQ, but I don't have to like it.  I will give it my best to make it work, buit if it fails it will fail on it's own.  Don't be too quick to ask someone to rethink whether they should leave because they may not agree with you.  That is POOR LEADERSHIP! 

 

I have received some very encouraging emails from some of you, and its great to know there are stand-up people willing to help.  I have also learned I am not the first CCM.  But apparently my predecessor left no mark on the organization, I assure you, I will not go quietly into oblivion.  

Lordmonar, I prefered to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 01, 2007, 02:02:27 AM

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 12:10:38 AM
Sure, CAP has long accommodated NCOs, but doesn't know what to do with us.  The NCO Corps will be consolidated into a new specialty track; managed entirely by the NCOs themselves.  That removes us from the control of headquarters, petty politics, and the booby traps of the unending guerrilla warfare that goes on in CAP.  The track will be "closed" that is, if you were not an NCO in the US armed forces, you cannot be an NCO in CAP.  The rationale is simple: prior service NCOs are already trained and experienced, and we must be perceived, both in and out of CAP, as "real" NCOs, or we have no credibility.  This is vital to improving our relationship with the Air Force. But that does not preclude opening the track in the future to civilians who can be properly trained.

The NCO in CAP will do what the NCO does in the military: speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability, enforce standards in wear of the uniform, customs and courtesies, conduct military formations and ceremonies, mentor officers with leadership skills, and advise commanders in the better interests of CAP, its people, and missions.  This is the road to true professionalism.

CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY.  Great that you were an NCO, it is great we have prior service members in CAP that can lend thier experiances and leadership to the organization.  My Question...What makes an NCO any better at advising commanders on CAPs missions, interests, people then say a "non-NCO"?
I speak the truth, practice fairness, seek justice, demand accountability and enforce standards.  Why do I need an NCO at my side?
Simply put, I command a Field Artillery Battery in the Army, I have subordinate NCO's that do what you are speaking of.  I need them for the unit to function accordingly.  However, that world is SO MUCH different than CAP.

You made one mistake in your entire discussion.  You said " This is vital to improving our relationship with the Air Force. But that does not preclude opening the track in the future to civilians who can be properly trained" 
Never forget even if you are an NCO, in CAP you are a civilian like the rest of us.  How would creating a closed specialty not creat the appearance of an "elite society" within the organization?  How would those of us who wanted to be NCO's and were not in the military be trained?  I will tell you what, I have met my fair share of CAP NCO's that do not know the first thing about CAP, and go through the motions, without adding anything.

I feel this COULD turn out to be a tremenous waste of time and resources.  Like others have said, it may work in Iowa, but seriously, Iowa is not a representation of the entire CAP. 

Finally you say you are our portal to NHQ.  How exactly?  Last time I looked I already have my chain of command.  You quote the military use of NCO's, how then would my portal of communication be through an NCO.  I am an officer, shouldn't it be directed the way it has been for the last twenty or so years?  Never needed a Chief before.  I guess when it is all in place, I will go to my NCO, and ask him or her  "if you have time can you pass my concerns up your NCO grapevine".   

THIS is not an attack against  Chief Chiafos or what he is selling us.  I wish him all the luck at getting this started. 

I for one will remain skeptical, BUT WILL SUPPORT WHATEVER COMES DOWN THE CHAIN AND ALLOW IT FAIL ON IT'S OWN!   

Thats exactly what I am trying to say. He speaks about being a portal, but thats why we have Region Commanders and WIng Commanders. NCO's traditionally are the voice of the enlisted soldier. We dont have enlisted folks inCAP. Everybody is an Officer. SO, whats the deal????????

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 01, 2007, 03:40:50 AM

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 02:40:24 AM
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey,

Wow, you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder.  How can you put on a military uniform and then claim your not military in nature? Is that what you say to every passer-by while your wearing it - "excuse me ma'm I'm not really in the military".  Perhaps CAP ought to subsitiute the name on our name tags with "Not Really In The Military"!  This is the very schizophrenia that is the ruination of CAP.  For some one who claims to have commanded a military unit you seem to have little knowledge of the NCO or how one plugs into an organization.  My question to you is: can you bring something positive into this converastion.  If you can't then its time for you to rethink wether or not you really belong in CAP.

When I am doing CAP business, I am not in the military.  There are those of us who wish (I am one) that CAP were more like the military but it is not.  It was never supposed to be the military.  I am not the one demilitarizing the CAP.  IT is your BOSS and the Corporate Big Wigs at NHQ.  They have moved the CAP further and further away from the AF.  Compare the organization twenty years ago to what it is today.  Huge differences.  You have been a member, you can see the changes.
  I hope you can bring the CAP-AF relationship closer together than it has ever been.  I would do whatever was asked of me to support that.  However, I take offense to your comments.  Who the heck are you to outright say someone should rethink thier future in CAP because he or she does not agree with what you are going to be doing.  I fully understand the nature and function of an NCO.  Before I was commissioned, those men and women taught me the leadership neccessary to function in the Army.  Today I work side by side with them and have gone to war with them.  However, I also understand that in the end they work for me (the officer).  Let's not loose sight of that.  If we are going to change the NCO corps in CAP to mimick the military, what will you do about that situation?  From what I have read it seemed that you wanted to make the NCO structure seperate from the officer stucture.  I may be reading into too many posts, but that was the impression I got from it.

Like I said before, I will support whatever you do, and what comes from NHQ, but I don't have to like it.  I will give it my best to make it work, buit if it fails it will fail on it's own.  Don't be too quick to ask someone to rethink whether they should leave because they may not agree with you.  That is POOR LEADERSHIP! 

 

I agree again ;D Boy, I am agreeing with e RedLeg too much ;D

Everybody go ring in the New Year and give it a rest... Geez.

Quote from: MIKE on January 01, 2007, 04:19:30 AM
Everybody go ring in the New Year and give it a rest... Geez.

Sounds like a winnah to me... off to pop the bubbly!

QuoteIf I see one more cadet squadron reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, instead of standing at attention, saluting the flag, to the notes of To The Colors, or the National Anthem, I shall run screaming naked down the street.

The statement about reciting the Pledge caught my attention because it is something that is done regularly at most every CAP meeting I have been to.    So, I decided to go to the source and look it up in the regs.  CAPP 151 has the following:

Quote
(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should remove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)

So, if you're inside in a meeting you can say the pledge even if in uniform unless you're lined up on a drill floor in formation.  

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 01, 2007, 04:22:05 AM

Quote from: MIKE on January 01, 2007, 04:19:30 AM
Everybody go ring in the New Year and give it a rest... Geez.

Sounds like a winnah to me... off to pop the bubbly!

Enjoy - I'm on the clock until 0600. Here's hoping for an uneventful night for everybody who's workin' on New Year's Eve!

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 03:42:14 AM
I have received some very encouraging emails from some of you, and its great to know there are stand-up people willing to help.  I have also learned I am not the first CCM.  But apparently my predecessor left no mark on the organization, I assure you, I will not go quietly into oblivion.  

Lordmonar, I preferred to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

Don't get me wrong...I mentor my Lt's and Capt just like everyone else.  But the leadership dynamic between active duty and CAP is vastly different.  A CAP NCO will be at a much greater disadvantage to mentor CAP officers than an active duty NCO does to AD officers.

For one the age and experience difference.  A 2 year 24 year old Lt has got to respect my 20 years of service, 41 years of life experience and my job qualification.  But a 50 year old brand new CAP Capt with 10 billion flying hours who just retired from his job is not the same.  I have absolutely no handle on him at all.  He is older than me, more qualified for the job he is doing, he would out rank me and he may be bringing an old school idea about who officers and enlisted interact.

As for a place in CAP for NCO's....again...I don't really see it.  Not with out a major change in the structure of the senior member system.  I would like you show me how it could work.

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 03:42:14 AMLordmonar, I prefered to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

Chief, as you should know there is a HUGE difference in terrorizing a young 2d Lt and getting them to understand that not only are you not there to beat them into submission, you're actually there to help them grow. Terrorizing is easy. Perhaps too many 2d Lt's have met nco's with your attitude, which makes them even less likely to believe an nco is actually interested in helping them succeed. With that outlook, the foundation for the wall between CAP officers and NCO's is well and truly built.

The biggest single problem facing CAP now isn't the lack of military discipline. It's the complete lack of information from the top. Supposedly, the National Commander has a plan and a vision - at least I hope he does - that he hasn't seen fit to share with the members. All we see are disconnected changes, new uniforms, removals that appear to be politically motivated, and other such nonsense. The impression is that the CAP/CC doesn't trust the members with his vision, but yet he expects us to blindly follow his lead. If the CAP/CC has a vision, plan, goal, or destination for the organization, why doesn't he share with the members? Chief, you should know that in the absence of accurate information, rumor, speculation, and gossip run rampant and tear apart any espirit de corps that has been carefully cultivated.

ps. If a poster's email address is hidden, you can send them a pm (private message). Same thing as an email, just message is stored in their 'in box' on CAP Talk instead of their home email.

QuoteThe fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

Okay, this whole thing has got to be a hoax.  If it isn't, then if the "Chief" is saying stuff like the above I'm not sure he is the person we want to develop any NCO corps because this sure isn't the way to be an example for the rest of us on how to be a leader.  At a minimum any leader knows that if you're going to critisize someone you do it in private.  Since the "Chief" came on here in a more or less offical capacity he should act like it rather than acting like the rest of the internet cowboys.  Frankly, I don't believe that if this poster was the real deal that he would have said this, so I am going to act on the assumption it is a hoax until there is some official notice. 

Welcome, Chief, and thanks for the efforts we've all heard about in IAWG -- looks like y'all have done a fantastic and professional job up there.  I'd love to hear more about the ops of ICAPA and such sometime.  In another thread, perhaps?

I'm going to read between the lines here and translate what I think I'm reading.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, there's definitely no shortage of that here:

The point of the NCO corps seems to be a de facto Stan/Eval team for whatever echelon it's assigned to (or represents), and perhaps an advisory council for that echelon upwards, for the rank-and-file members.

Think Super-CAC, in theory, or Super-Stan-Eval.  Or a council of Jedi Knights, if you're so inclined.  But I don't think it's going to be the exact same role of NCOs as they exist in the wild -- for that, you need a numerically gigantic source of airmen and a much smaller corps of officers than we have right now.  If there's a plan for that, let's hear it as well.  We've tabletopped those scenarios too!

I think if we get too wrapped around the axle of "Officers" vs. "NCOs," we'll be beating our heads against the wall (or each other) from here 'til Kingdom Come.

The sea change I'm not seeing articulated from any specific level of leadership (Wing, Region, or National) is the idea that CAP is on a course to be "more military" by design.  If it's a national (region, wing, whatever) goal to be "more military," whether it's to improve our image with our benevolent Air Force parent and her sister services, or to gain more credibility with stakeholder agencies, then let's hear about it.  I think many here would support those efforts (and if someone wants to make them orders, we'll gladly follow them).

As an aside, Chief, in your response to Mikey earlier -- I've very rarely seen a CAP officer, NCO, or cadet go out of their way to distance themselves from the Air Force, with the rare exception that a passerby will occasionally offer to pick up a post-meeting snack or coffee tab for our "service," believing that we're RealMilitary(tm).  But I have seen from both our CAP leaders and some rank-and-file Air Force folks a mutual "we're not with them/they're not with us" attitude.  If having a more active, involved, and credible NCO corps helps out our relationship with the Air Force, bring it on.  But if Chief McKinley starts getting heartburn over it, that's probably another story.

If we can develop, cultivate, and reap the benefits of an unpaid professional corps of NCOs at a usable level, it sounds like a great deal.  I'm curious to see what the plan is for local deployment of NCOs to units, so that their acquired knowledge and experience can be applied evenly throughout the organization (in other words, when does my unit get one? Because in the units I've been in, the retired NCOs don't want the job that the Chief is hiring for!).

If there can be NCO "advisors" on tap for local commanders and staffs to contact about procedures, protocols, and assorted leadership advice, I think it's a great thing.  My question is, if we already have NCOs in our current officer corps (wolves in sheep's clothing, to be dramatic), why aren't they already doing that job?

If there are some seriously bad apples in the NCO barrel, even in small numbers, unaccountable to any echelon other than themselves, well, I have reservations about that, for obvious reasons. 

Chief Chiafos may be the most squared-away leader in CAP, but I assure you that every NCO that could fit the membership requirements is not nearly so high-speed, regardless of what his or her stripe count is/was.  I've worked with some retired NCOs in different companies, from different services, and I think across the board, you're looking at the same varying quality of employee/coworker/supervisor that you get from any other business.  Some men I'd go to battle aside, armed only with a Swiss Army Knife and a will to win; some of them I wouldn't trust any farther than I could throw them.

I have the greatest of respect for, and would always welcome, any squared-away NCO who is focused on the organization, the mission, and the people.  I welcome their contributions, their leadership, and their experience, again, for obvious reasons.

What I don't want to see (in CAP, in my workplace, or at the local tavern, for that matter) is a bunch of folks running around with an "I'm a SERGEANT, you better LISTEN TO ME, cause you don't know ANYTHING!" attitude.  Because I fear for every hangar-flying Major out there, there's one of those guys standing by.

Professional NCOs, with the hearts of leaders, teachers, and mentors, are rare jewels indeed.  But to start with the assumption that any military NCO brings those specific skills and mindset to this organization by edict (or magic) is optimistic to the point of unworkable.

From the references in IAWG, Chief Chiafos sounds like one of the good guys, though the exchange with lordmonar seems, um, unfortunate.  It's nice to have you on board, Chief!

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:45:40 AM
Okay, this whole thing has got to be a hoax. 

I wondered that too until I did a little digging on e-services.  The Member Quals report shows there is indeed a CMSGT Robert Chiafos assigned to NHQ unit 999.  He completed Orientation and Level 1 in Nov 2004 and has completed SLS. Cadet Programs specialty track.   So the name and the NHQ assignment is legit.   
Whether the poster is the real CMSGT Chiafos, well, we have to take that on faith just like all of us on this forum who haven't met in person.

Oh, BTW - HAPPY 2007!!!!

Just a couple of thoughts here...

I did actually receive an official notification of the Chiefs new job a couple of weeks ago, and as I said before, I'm willing to hold my own counsel until I see the whole plan and program laid out.  

One thing that concerns me with the formation of an NCO Corps that can't/doesn't hold command authority, there are many of us former NCO's ( I was an USN AT1 (E-6)) who are functioning as squadron commanders, and if a large portion of this population were to return to their stripes, who would take over the squadrons?  Most squadrons I have seen have about 25-30% of the membership (on the books) who can actually be called active, with the commander actually doing the jobs of 6-8 staff positions in addition to his/her own.  

As an NCO, I had the unfortunate duty of mentoring several new division officers in the processing of their required paperwork etc. and to be honest, a few were good people who took to the job and did it well but there were several others who would just dump it back in my lap--  "Here Petty Officer Sayre, take care of this for me".  Overall,  I'd rather gouge my own eyes out with a dull rusty spoon than have to train a new commander as an NCO again.

Quote from: BlackKnight on January 01, 2007, 05:01:17 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:45:40 AM
Okay, this whole thing has got to be a hoax. 

I wondered that too until I did a little digging on e-services.  The Member Quals report shows there is indeed a CMSGT Robert Chiafos assigned to NHQ unit 999.  He completed Orientation and Level 1 in Nov 2004 and has completed SLS. Cadet Programs specialty track.   So the name and the NHQ assignment is legit.   
Whether the poster is the real CMSGT Chiafos, well, we have to take that on faith just like all of us on this forum who haven't met in person.

Oh, BTW - HAPPY 2007!!!!

How do you look up somebody onthe CAP website? I am not sure Ilike that idea where just anybody can find my information.

Commanders, and some of the Wing Positions who know how to use e-Services can do it, but I'm not giving out instructions...

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 05:10:14 AM

Quote from: BlackKnight on January 01, 2007, 05:01:17 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:45:40 AM
Okay, this whole thing has got to be a hoax. 

I wondered that too until I did a little digging on e-services.  The Member Quals report shows there is indeed a CMSGT Robert Chiafos assigned to NHQ unit 999.  He completed Orientation and Level 1 in Nov 2004 and has completed SLS. Cadet Programs specialty track.   So the name and the NHQ assignment is legit.   
Whether the poster is the real CMSGT Chiafos, well, we have to take that on faith just like all of us on this forum who haven't met in person.

Oh, BTW - HAPPY 2007!!!!

How do you look up somebody onthe CAP website? I am not sure Ilike that idea where just anybody can find my information.

This is as close as we'll get...

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_110403151547.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_110403151547.pdf)

He's listed on page 30.

Command Chief Master Sergeant
CMSGT Robert D. Chiafos, CAP
180 South 19th St.
Marion, IA 52302
Home Phone: 319-377-0638
E-mail: afchief@earthlink.net

ok, sorry to change the subject for a minut, but I have to interject. I was one of those 2LT's once upon a time ago and ws mentored by many NCO's. Yes, I was kicked in the pants a few times but it was good for me. s long as junior officers listen to the guidence of good NCO's he wil grow into a good leader.

Now back to the topic at hand

Well the info in mlcurtis69's post jibes with the listed profile, so I'll consider the poster genuine until proven different.

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 05:22:12 AM
(A)s long as junior officers listen...

and therein lies the rub... :D

Dont steretype officers. ;D Its not nice. I know a lot of crappy NCO's as well

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on January 01, 2007, 05:18:53 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 05:10:14 AM

Quote from: BlackKnight on January 01, 2007, 05:01:17 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:45:40 AM
Okay, this whole thing has got to be a hoax. 

I wondered that too until I did a little digging on e-services.  The Member Quals report shows there is indeed a CMSGT Robert Chiafos assigned to NHQ unit 999.  He completed Orientation and Level 1 in Nov 2004 and has completed SLS. Cadet Programs specialty track.   So the name and the NHQ assignment is legit.   
Whether the poster is the real CMSGT Chiafos, well, we have to take that on faith just like all of us on this forum who haven't met in person.

Oh, BTW - HAPPY 2007!!!!

How do you look up somebody onthe CAP website? I am not sure Ilike that idea where just anybody can find my information.

This is as close as we'll get...

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_110403151547.pdf (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_110403151547.pdf)

He's listed on page 30.

Command Chief Master Sergeant
CMSGT Robert D. Chiafos, CAP
180 South 19th St.
Marion, IA 52302
Home Phone: 319-377-0638
E-mail: afchief@earthlink.net

Ok, I just went to that llink and I have a clearer understanding now. He's part of the advisory committee. OK. no big deal. I was thinking he was going to be partof the Command Group like in the USAF. He's on the advisory group along withthe National Safety Officer,aE Advisor CAdet Program advisor  EEO Officer and other people you never hear about

I'm not stereotyping, just relating my personal experience.  As I said before, some of them were genuinely good Officers who really wanted to learn how to do the job and do it well.  These folks got a first class lesson in how the system works and 101 ways to get impossible things done quickly (amazing how co-operative folks are when you give them the occasional can of coffee or bottle of adult beverage).  

Unfortunately, there were also those who saw the job as a make-work stepping stone and figured if an NCO can mentor them on how to do it, it couldn't be that hard and why not just make the NCO do the job.  I guess they never gave much thought to what could happen to their careers if the NCO screwed up either acidentally or on purpose.

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 05:48:56 AM
...He's on the advisory group along with the National Safety Officer, AE Advisor Cadet Program advisor  EEO Officer and other people you never hear about .

Nobody has a way with words the way Flyguy does.   ;D  ;D  ;D

Another question.

Which side of the street are we walking on here?

One day we're repainting the planes, covering the seals, redoing the MAJCOM, and discussing how PCA doesn't apply because "we aren't the military"

And the next we are appointing people with the intention of "remiliatarizing" the organization and forging closer ties to the USAF.

“Schizophrenia beats dining alone.”

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 03:42:14 AMLordmonar, I prefered to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

"...terrorize a second lieutenant at will...?"

Chief, if this is your plan and attitude, well good luck with that.

I have been chastised, and properly so, for harshness with Lordmonar - My apologies to him.  Over the years the Air Force has tried to minimize the NCO, filling many NCO positions with officers, and selling the NCO as nothing more than a manager.  The current war has exposed flaw after flaw in that thinking, and now the Air Force is in full correction mode, even changing the basic training format.  While managers are necessary, NCOs are vital.

CAP is not the Air Force, I understand that.  And the NCO Corps is not a silver bullet.  And yes, there are marginal NCOs, and, in OSI I had the unpleasent duty of firing more than one Master Sergeant who could not get the job done.

I also know that many good members of this organization have been lied to, cheated, and had the living crap kicked out of them - yet, somehow, they cling to the hope that something better is coming.  The dismay, frustration, and resentment I see on this website speaks volumes about how CAP is a dismal failure; failure to lead, failure to train, failure - time after time - to simply do the right thing.

My question to you is: Do we just shrug our sholders and take it?  Or do we follow a vision, and transform ourselves and CAP into an organization that people stand in line to join?  Together, we can do just that.

NCOs, as in the services, will be assigned to a unit commander. The NCO will serve that commander by training, teaching, and mentoring the units members with professional military education.  The NCO, however, will be held accountable for his conduct and actions by Senior NCOs simply because if we ever get sucked into the politics and pettiness of CAP's business as usuall attitude - it will all collapse, and other good effort will be chucked into the trash can.

An NCO who has to "order" people about is no NCO, and will soon find him (her) self busted to FO and looking for something else to do.  Our authority is moral leadership by example.  And nothing and no one will be allowed to compromise that.  People follow because they want to be lead, they will follow NCOs only so long as its the right thing to do.

This isn't rocket science here, it's a matter of leadership, and the NCO Corps is a good way to get started.  If you don't think so, then tell me your plans - I'd love to hear them.

Quote from: BlackKnight on January 01, 2007, 06:02:36 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 05:48:56 AM
...He's on the advisory group along with the National Safety Officer, AE Advisor Cadet Program advisor  EEO Officer and other people you never hear about .

Nobody has a way with words the way Flyguy does.   ;D  ;D  ;D

;DI can get away with it because I am a young Senior Member and folks probably dont take me seriously anyway and I a mcute too ;D

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2007, 06:25:07 AM

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 03:42:14 AMLordmonar, I prefered to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

"...terrorize a second lieutenant at will...?"

Chief, if this is your plan and attitude, well good luck with that.

Easy onhim. Its just a figure of speech. A metephore if you will

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 07:02:43 AM

Quote from: BlackKnight on January 01, 2007, 06:02:36 AM
Nobody has a way with words the way Flyguy does.   ;D  ;D  ;D

;DI can get away with it because I am a young Senior Member and folks probably dont take me seriously anyway and I a mcute too ;D

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 01, 2007, 07:04:08 AM
Easy onhim. Its just a figure of speech. A metephore if you will

You been drankin tonight son (flashlight in eyes), cause that was some troubled typing you just did there. Happy new year!

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 06:30:09 AM
An NCO who has to "order" people about is no NCO, and will soon find him (her) self busted to FO and looking for something else to do.  Our authority is moral leadership by example.  And nothing and no one will be allowed to compromise that.  People follow because they want to be lead, they will follow NCOs only so long as its the right thing to do.

Chief I couldn't agree with that statement more - FOs are 18-21 only by the way.

You know a good leader though comes to his people and asks them for the opportunity to share his vision, explains it in detail, allows input/shaping so subordinates take ownership, then finally ASKS them to follow him down that road. Chief I want to see that vision. I want the Nat CC to stand before the membership (figuratively) & tell us exactly what he wants CAP to be & how he intends for us to get there as a team, to provide an input conduit for members & faith it's being addressed (apparently that's part of your job description), I want him to stand up knowing it'll cost members on one side or the other (who will be replaced just as quick)... I want to see some bold leadership rather than political CYA BS that's torn this org down over the last 20 years. Chief I want to see that from leadership slots or I want those people to stand aside & let someone else take charge.

Chief I'd also agree that CAP hasn't been held to the standard we're being judged against by the outside world & that won't last forever. There's people running for President (on both sides) with pretty strong positions on CAP. Congress isn't at all happy with the 2000 changes but is split on what to do & our members wouldn't like some of those options. I think it's 2-3 years we have to show significant progress down the road of transformation or we're in fairly serious danger of letting this die on our watch. I hate to doom & gloom this one chief. I just feel the stakes and dangers are higher than people understand & the time frame is not unlimited as it has been. I really want to see CAP leadership take ownership of these problems & sell membership on a plan for the future, & I don't mean some flower BS that no one could disagree with.

"Drunken paranoid schizophrenic..."

I like that!

Chief:

I am one of the few RLO's in CAP, and I know the value of skilled, dedicated NCO's both in mentoring junior officers, and leading junior enlisted, which in our case is a bunch of teen and pre-teen cadets.*

I'm sure you once had to memorize the Principles of Leadership, one of which is "Keep your men informed."**  From what you have told us, the General wants to place us back as an integral part of the Air Force, where is where we once were and where we should be.  Some of the General's actions have been interpreted by folks as having the opposite intent.

My hope is that we can get the sheet music before all of us out in the orchestra have to play the symphony.

*  Special note to the anal purists out there, yes, I KNOW some cadets are 20.  I was generalizing.

**  Note to the political correctness nazis, yes, I know I said "Men" and there are women out there too.  Deal with it, that's the way I learned it.  I went to OCS before women were discovered.

Just what the world needs, another terrorizer (albeit a terrorizer of junior officers) -

--NOT!!

... CAP needs leaders with vision, values and virtues and not terror-izers.

The verb "terrorize" and its related noun "terrorist" call to mind the vilest and most evil members of the human race and their cruel and heartless actions -- ESPECIALLY post-9/11. It brings to mind IEDs, carbombs, suicide bombs and bombers, and B767's converted to guided missiles all to ostensibly change the world order.

If a CAP member --cadet, officer or NCO-- cannot LEAD other VOLUNTEERS without seeking to inflict or promote fear (let alone --heaven forbid-- "terror"), they have no business in the Organization OR decent human society.

Shame on you Chief for your ill-thought choice of words. I pray that it was only a "slip of the keyboard."

If ALL parties involved in this discussion cannot control the tone/content of their posts... Action will be taken.  I've already let a number of 'em slip by as it is.

Membership Code of Conduct  (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0)

I think the thing that shocks me the most about this thread is the blatant example of CAP's split personality from several people:

-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces

I've seen things said from many folks that would absolutely earn a slice of "wall-to-wall" counseling if there ever was a need for such a thing.

One of these days, I outta finger somebody out and say, "knock it the heck off, XXXX - you are acting 100% counter to all that hot air you blow about being hardcore......"

Watch the squirming that would coincide...

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:24:35 AM
The statement about reciting the Pledge caught my attention because it is something that is done regularly at most every CAP meeting I have been to.    So, I decided to go to the source and look it up in the regs.  CAPP 151 has the following:

Quote
(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should remove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)

So, if you're inside in a meeting you can say the pledge even if in uniform unless you're lined up on a drill floor in formation.  

One of our other Group CCs recently pointed out that CAPP 151 actually contradicts the US Flag Code.

Quote from: 4 USC 1TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

(Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1494;
amended Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(a), Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060.)

I'd have to think that the USC trumps a CAP pamphlet, and we've instructed our members to remain silent.

The Air Force regulations back this up:

Quote2.18. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all should be rendered by standing at attention and facing the flag. When not in uniform, persons should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, with the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute if outdoors and indoors if in formation and wearing appropriate headdress. If indoors and without headdress, military members should stand at attention, remain silent, and face the flag. Military members in uniform do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

However, what needs to be done is change the CAP regulation.  Now, if this was done would it effectively outlaw saying the Pledge at a CAP activity?  After all, who would be leading and saying the pledge if everybody else is standing silent?  Just the people in civies or CAP uniform?  The AF reg doesn't give any guidance to non-formation pledges of allegience, which is how I've usually seen it done. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 06:07:33 PM
However, what needs to be done is change the CAP regulation.  Now, if this was done would it effectively outlaw saying the Pledge at a CAP activity?  After all, who would be leading and saying the pledge if everybody else is standing silent?  Just the people in civies or CAP uniform?  The AF reg doesn't give any guidance to non-formation pledges of allegience, which is how I've usually seen it done.

Actually, the federal law wouldn't allow members wearing a CAP uniform to recite the pledge either.

QuoteQuote from: 4 USC 1
TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

It does not say military uniform. It just says uniform. Therefore, CAP members in uniform would not recite the pledge.

The reason why military personnel remain silent during the pledge of allegiance is that they have taken a higher pledge.  The oaths of enlistment and commission supersede the pledge of allegiance.  CAP members (as CAP members) don't take those oaths and therefore should say the pledge.  The USC when it says "persons in uniform" does it mean any uniform or does it assume military personnel in uniform.  Because I would hate to see the guy in his Mc Donald's uniform not saying the pledge.

Quote from: MCreedKY214 on January 01, 2007, 05:57:18 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 04:24:35 AM
The statement about reciting the Pledge caught my attention because it is something that is done regularly at most every CAP meeting I have been to.    So, I decided to go to the source and look it up in the regs.  CAPP 151 has the following:

Quote
(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should remove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)

So, if you're inside in a meeting you can say the pledge even if in uniform unless you're lined up on a drill floor in formation.  

One of our other Group CCs recently pointed out that CAPP 151 actually contradicts the US Flag Code.

Quote from: 4 USC 1TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

(Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1494;
amended Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(a), Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060.)

I'd have to think that the USC trumps a CAP pamphlet, and we've instructed our members to remain silent.

According to the CAPM 39-1, CAP members wear a "AF-Style uniform" or a uniform "similar to the U.S. Air Force, so I do not see a contridiction or the USC trumping a CAP pamphlet.  From my understanding, CAP members do not come under the USC or the UCMJ codes.

Wow!  Some interesting comments all around...to say the least.

While I agree with many of the Chief's general thoughts/impressions about CAP and the need for change, I remain for skeptical that this is an approach that would effectively address those issues. 

As was pointed out by another poster, this proposal is at odds with uniform changes (think Majcom patch) and aircraft/vehicle markings (removal of USAF AUX).  Thus, it further adds to the schizophrenia of the organization.

The lack of communication, particularly as it relates to our strategic direction, remains one of the most significant detriments to the organization.   And actually, it's not just the lack of communication, it's the lack of a consistant message.  This thread helps illustrate this point.

That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that currently have acheived advanced ranks in CAP without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

Quote from: A.Member on January 01, 2007, 06:49:12 PM
That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that have acheived advanced ranks without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

Indeed it is. But if we don't start because of the impact, then we're not making an effort to improve ourselves. "Can't make an omelet..." and all that. Personally, I would make an effort to meet any new requirements, and I think a number of current members would be more than willing to do the same.

If they do this, I hope they lay out a new plan soon. I'd like to get started.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 01, 2007, 06:59:57 PM

Quote from: A.Member on January 01, 2007, 06:49:12 PM
That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that have acheived advanced ranks without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

Indeed it is. But if we don't start because of the impact, then we're not making an effort to improve ourselves. "Can't make an omelet..." and all that. Personally, I would make an effort to meet any new requirements, and I think a number of current members would be more than willing to do the same.

If they do this, I hope they lay out a new plan soon. I'd like to get started.

I don't disagree at all.  Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the goal.  I was just pointing out one of the items I see as needing to be addressed in order to for such a program to be effective/successful.

Quote from: DNall on January 01, 2007, 10:00:16 AMThere's people running for President (on both sides) with pretty strong positions on CAP.

Who, running for President, even knows what CAP is?

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 01, 2007, 05:27:34 PM-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces.

This come from the highest echelons.

You can't have it both ways there and then expect it will be different in the ranks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

Quote from: A.Member on January 01, 2007, 07:15:19 PM

I don't disagree at all.  Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the goal.  I was just pointing out one of the items I see as needing to be addressed in order to for such a program to be effective/successful.

Good point. We've had a lot of new ideas come down, but no clear vision. I guess "wait and see" is as prudent now as it ever has been.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2007, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 01, 2007, 05:27:34 PM-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces.

This come from the highest echelons.

You can't have it both ways there and then expect it will be different in the ranks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

Our biggest problem. Anyone have ideas on how to solve it? I'm definitely drawing a blank.

If being members required accountability, overall, we'd probably have a better program, and be taken more seriously. Plus, your organization is more reliable when there are repercussions for not doing the duty you volunteered for.

Maybe we need an organization that has the option of more than just "kicking people out" when they misbehave. What should it be? Don't ask me, just thinking out loud, and there are a lot of people here a lot smarter than me that would have a better chance at figuring it out.

CAP has always had an alternative to kicking someone out. It's reduction in grade. Both the 2B and reduction in grade require the Wing Commanders approval, but the alternative is there. Another alternative is suspension for 60 days, or the Wing Commander can suspend for up to 180 days.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 01, 2007, 06:29:50 PM
The reason why military personnel remain silent during the pledge of allegiance is that they have taken a higher pledge.  The oaths of enlistment and commission supersede the pledge of allegiance.  CAP members (as CAP members) don't take those oaths and therefore should say the pledge.  The USC when it says "persons in uniform" does it mean any uniform or does it assume military personnel in uniform.  Because I would hate to see the guy in his Mc Donald's uniform not saying the pledge.

The boy scouts have at times interpreted it to apply to them... The USC does not say yada yada BECAUSE they have taken a higher oath, that's teh first I've ever heard of such a thing actually... The military, especially the AF, considers a CAP uniform (at least the AF-style one) to be an AF uniform regardless of who is wearing it.... Therefore, I think it's perfectly appropriate to interpret the law/regs as applying to CAP, plus you should be teaching them the right military way anyway so they don't look like idiots in front of military personnel & reflect badly on CAP because of it. The exception on this rule that I've always learned is while in uniform & not in formation & when surrounded by civilians saying it who might find it wierd/offensive/bad-decorum for you NOT to be saying it, then it's optional to say it as you feel appropriate. That shouldn't be the case at a CAP meeting though. That's all another subject though, let it fly in a dif thread!!

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 01, 2007, 07:58:53 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2007, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 01, 2007, 05:27:34 PM-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces.

This come from the highest echelons.

You can't have it both ways there and then expect it will be different in the ranks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

Our biggest problem. Anyone have ideas on how to solve it? I'm definitely drawing a blank.

If being members required accountability, overall, we'd probably have a better program, and be taken more seriously. Plus, your organization is more reliable when there are repercussions for not doing the duty you volunteered for.

Maybe we need an organization that has the option of more than just "kicking people out" when they misbehave. What should it be? Don't ask me, just thinking out loud, and there are a lot of people here a lot smarter than me that would have a better chance at figuring it out.

Well I certainly wish the organization were run in a more military style. That implies though a strong underlying system that develops a pool of actually qualified candidates that have been tested & nurtured throughout their careers before they ever assume any command post, or even a significant staff position. We throw people in the fire with a book of regs doused in gas & kick 'em in the butt on the way.

There's some basic truths of human nature. One of those is that people will seek leadership to follow, not positions but actions. In response to a lack of leadership from someone in a leadership post, you'll get overwhelming crys for demonstrated leadership & communicated vision. In the military you certainly have the option to order a subordinate to shut up & follow instructions, but you're going to get a lot better work out of them & a lot more accoumplished as an overall team if you explain what everyone is doing, why, & why it's important, then ask them for their help & support as you coach the team to your joint goals. That doesn't mean for a second you're giving up command or anything else. You're just showing your team the boat & asking them to get on board with you. As a leader in the military, you have to do that as much as you can. Then when you've personally earned the respect & trust of your troops you can order them to do things when there isn't a way for them to see the big picture & they'll follow you right to the gates of hell not ever knowing why you're going just cause you've built that trust & confidence in your leadership & developed strong followers & teammates. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the military, a baseball team, or your corporate job, it's all the same human nature.

If you think that attitude deserves counseling, I welcome your input. If you think our leadership is failing to lead in any sense of the word & should look to that simple paragraph for advice that they might serve the best interests of CAP & the AF, then we're in agreement. If you have some other key bit of wisdom you think most important for our leadership to follow, feel free to say so.

Quote from: DNall on January 01, 2007, 08:39:18 PMThe boy scouts have at times interpreted it to apply to them... The USC does not say yada yada BECAUSE they have taken a higher oath, that's teh first I've ever heard of such a thing actually... The military, especially the AF, considers a CAP uniform (at least the AF-style one) to be an AF uniform regardless of who is wearing it.... Therefore, I think it's perfectly appropriate to interpret the law/regs as applying to CAP, plus you should be teaching them the right military way anyway so they don't look like idiots in front of military personnel & reflect badly on CAP because of it. The exception on this rule that I've always learned is while in uniform & not in formation & when surrounded by civilians saying it who might find it wierd/offensive/bad-decorum for you NOT to be saying it, then it's optional to say it as you feel appropriate. That shouldn't be the case at a CAP meeting though.

Likewise, CAP now considers the blue 'TPU' combination a 'military-style' uniform. Capt. Harris's mention of the 'higher oath', while not codified in the U.S. flag code, is one of the unwritten traditions and customs of the military.

Chief,

How many CAP NCO's are in the organization right now?  How do you plan to attract an NCO?  What would you say to prospective members that wish to take off thier stripes and jump on the officer side?  What training will you be performing that is not being done now?  Who will oversee Pro Dev for these NCO's at NHQ?  What specific responsibilites will these NCO's have?  How will thier interaction with the military be any different than say mine?  Please cite specific examples from Iowa Wing in these areas!  How do you plan to roll this program out?  Why do we need this to happen?  What have you told TP regarding your vision for the future?  Please share your vision.....other than citing simplistic wishes. 

These are all legit questions, I am not convinced after reading the mutlitude of posts that we need an NCO corps.  What have they done for the organization in recent history?  I know what they did 50 years ago.  Are you trying to bring that back?  Finally I am sick of hearing the NCO's would oversee the Cadet PRogram.  What makes them any better at it than say ME, or another officer.  Why would we let a member jump into Cadet Programs just on the basis that they were an NCO as the first line of reasoning?

Why did TP select you to head this up?  What does he want to see be done with the NCOs? 

We are all in the dark and your answers and non-ansewers have given me a pause to really think about the NCO side of CAP.  In my opinion, it is a dead log that has only been carried on to attract those very few ex-NCO's that have that "I don't want to be an Officer mentality" and preach NCO's do everything.  What does CAP get from it.....maybe 50 new members a year that keep thier stripes on!  I am really interested in seeing some numbers, some point papers and some legit news from NHQ.

Enough of these fly by night changes from Maxwell!  I can't wait to see what is next from NHQ.  I am sure we can expect huge changes that don't really address any of the problems in CAP.  Why is it so difficult to get that across to our leadership.  Perhaps because it is the "good ole boys club" from florida running the show. 

I forsee within the next month more political resignations of wing and region commanders, and a few more shakeups to 39-1.  Where are we going???   

Those of you who took exception to my 'terrorism' example are quite right.  It was the wrong metaphor, and did not invoke the image I had intended – I'll try to do better.

Mike, I am sorry for any breach of civility on my part, and apologize for any inappropriate responses I may have provoked.

The affinity CAP has for bogging itself down in the minutiae of the insignificant is nothing short of amazing.  I commented that cadets ought to be conducting military honors to the colors instead of the Pledge of Allegiance – point made?  Wrong, I am flooded with educational materials about the Pledge of Allegiance.  Oh well...

Ndall's post brings up the single greatest issue before all of CAP – our continued existence.  I have received many emails seeking information about the Air Force investigation.  I am not now free, nor will I ever be, to discuss specifics of that investigation.  What I can tell you is that it was massive.  A task force of OSI agents, forensic accountants, computer crime analysis, and legal advisors from the SJA was assembled.  Hundreds upon hundreds of interviews were conducted and thousands of documents were seized by subpoena or warrant.  A single copy of the final ROI (report of investigation) stuffed 10 large binders and filled an entire file drawer.  And it could not possibly have been more devastating, the bottom line: CAP was a thoroughly corrupt organization.

There was talk in some Air Force circles of pulling all Air Force missions out of CAP and contracting them to private SAR groups.  The following chain of thought is my own:  If the Air Force pulled it's missions congress would ask for justification.  If they ever saw the entire report there would be a scandal of major proportions.  It was not beyond the realm of possibility that an angry congress would revoke CAPs Charter, and disband the organization. In that process the Air Force would take a major tar and feathering right along with CAP.  The Air Force played it smart and did the right thing for the Air Force and CAP got a free pass on its coat tails.  Our Charter was changed.  We are no longer the full time official auxiliary of the Air Force, and the term "search and rescue" cannot be found in our mission purpose.  I believe this is the set up the Air Force will use in the future to dump CAP altogether – we are simply more trouble than we are worth.

And the excuse to do just that is now on the horizon.  CAP does not comply with the new training and certification standards for GSAR operations set by Homeland Defense.  Few seem to be aware of it and even fewer seem to care. 

I assure you, the Air Force has a long memory and the fall out from the investigation is still radioactive.  CAP burned them, and burned them good. Don't you think that the Air Force looks at these blogs to see what CAP is really up to?  We are so preoccupied in the useful pursuits of trashing each other, petty arguments, hair splitting, and character assassination; there is no time for reality. The 'we hate Pindeda' crowd is driving nail after nail into CAP's coffin lid.

I was reluctant to say any of this, for fear some moron will trot off with it, pry open Pandora's Box, and do us all in.  On the other hand, good people need to be aware of our jeopardy and where it is coming from, if we are to do something about it.  As I sit here I am contemplating the target rich environment I have created for the cut and paste quotation crowd, how they will probably misuse them, and how long it will take for they are plastered all over CAP blog sites.  I am sure the Air Force will enjoy them – do you hear the hamming sound of another nail being driven into CAPs coffin?  I do.

Quote from: DNall on January 01, 2007, 08:39:18 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 01, 2007, 07:58:53 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 01, 2007, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 01, 2007, 05:27:34 PM-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces.

This come from the highest echelons.

You can't have it both ways there and then expect it will be different in the ranks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

Our biggest problem. Anyone have ideas on how to solve it? I'm definitely drawing a blank.

If being members required accountability, overall, we'd probably have a better program, and be taken more seriously. Plus, your organization is more reliable when there are repercussions for not doing the duty you volunteered for.

Maybe we need an organization that has the option of more than just "kicking people out" when they misbehave. What should it be? Don't ask me, just thinking out loud, and there are a lot of people here a lot smarter than me that would have a better chance at figuring it out.

Well I certainly wish the organization were run in a more military style. That implies though a strong underlying system that develops a pool of actually qualified candidates that have been tested & nurtured throughout their careers before they ever assume any command post, or even a significant staff position. We throw people in the fire with a book of regs doused in gas & kick 'em in the butt on the way.

There's some basic truths of human nature. One of those is that people will seek leadership to follow, not positions but actions. In response to a lack of leadership from someone in a leadership post, you'll get overwhelming crys for demonstrated leadership & communicated vision. In the military you certainly have the option to order a subordinate to shut up & follow instructions, but you're going to get a lot better work out of them & a lot more accoumplished as an overall team if you explain what everyone is doing, why, & why it's important, then ask them for their help & support as you coach the team to your joint goals. That doesn't mean for a second you're giving up command or anything else. You're just showing your team the boat & asking them to get on board with you. As a leader in the military, you have to do that as much as you can. Then when you've personally earned the respect & trust of your troops you can order them to do things when there isn't a way for them to see the big picture & they'll follow you right to the gates of hell not ever knowing why you're going just cause you've built that trust & confidence in your leadership & developed strong followers & teammates. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the military, a baseball team, or your corporate job, it's all the same human nature.

If you think that attitude deserves counseling, I welcome your input. If you think our leadership is failing to lead in any sense of the word & should look to that simple paragraph for advice that they might serve the best interests of CAP & the AF, then we're in agreement. If you have some other key bit of wisdom you think most important for our leadership to follow, feel free to say so.

Let me see if I can wrap up in a nutshell what I think you're saying: "Lead when possible, command when necessary."

If that's what you're saying, I've found that effective in the past. And will continue to do it in the future.

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 08:57:50 PM
And the excuse to do just that is now on the horizon.  CAP does not comply with the new training and certification standards for GSAR operations set by Homeland Defense.  Few seem to be aware of it and even fewer seem to care.

Okay I'll bite...I am currently a GTM-3 trainee....what Homeland Defesn certifcation standars?  I got my SQTR and my task guide.  If there is any more training and certification necessary it certainly on National's web page! 

I don't think the problem is lack of NCO's in CAP....

Quote from: lordmonar on January 01, 2007, 09:09:52 PM

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 08:57:50 PM
And the excuse to do just that is now on the horizon.  CAP does not comply with the new training and certification standards for GSAR operations set by Homeland Defense.  Few seem to be aware of it and even fewer seem to care.

Okay I'll bite...I am currently a GTM-3 trainee....what Homeland Defesn certifcation standars?  I got my SQTR and my task guide.  If there is any more training and certification necessary it certainly on National's web page! 

An RFD was posted in another thread re: credentialing for SAR personnel.

That is so strange that this "huge" investigation was conducted but it is not public knowledge.  I could see AF OSI investigating CAP-USAF, but not CORPORATE CAP.  Last time I looked everything outside of the CAP-USAF Offices were CORPORATE business.  That said, the MILITARY would be hard pressed to justify to a federal judge why it went on private property and conducted illegal investigation of a civil entity.  I could see the FBI stepping in but not the military.  I am sure those with some type of law background would cite the seperation between CAP Corporate and CAP-USAF.  One is government the other is private.
 
Freesom of Information alone would allow this report to be seen because it involves a private corporation. 

I don't believe the "we hate Pineda" crowd is driving the "nail in the coffin", but Pineda is doing that very well on his own!.  His recent actions seemed to go against AF wishes.  Thats what does it. 

How will your NCO corps help us in light of your examples you have placed before us?

All the backchannel talk I've heard says that CAP will be getting in compliance, but there is actually some question as to whether it is required for us when acting as the AF Aux.  Take this part of the section of the Presidents directive makine NIMS required:

Quote(9) Nothing in this directive impairs or otherwise affects the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President as Commander in Chief, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures. The Secretary of Defense shall provide military support to civil authorities for domestic incidents as directed by the President or when consistent with military readiness and appropriate under the circumstances and the law. The Secretary of Defense shall retain command of military forces providing civil support. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary shall establish appropriate relationships and mechanisms for cooperation and coordination between their two departments.

Now, I haven't done a whole lot of research on this, but I'm not sure that we are required to follow along.  Don't get me wrong, I think we should, but to make a statement like:

QuoteAnd the excuse to do just that is now on the horizon.  CAP does not comply with the new training and certification standards for GSAR operations set by Homeland Defense.  Few seem to be aware of it and even fewer seem to care.

to say that he AF is looking to dump us just seems terribly irresponsible.  

I'm still not convinced that this is not an imposter here.  Can one of the veteran members contact him directly using known actual contact information and confirm with him that he is posting under this handle?  I'd like someone to vouch for him here. 

Mike,

Its real simple - when you accept Air Force money the Air Force has the right to investigate what you did with it - and they did precisely that.

OSI investigates civilian contractors all the time. 

Theres a difference between a civilian contractor and a private organization.  I just don't believe that there was a huge investigation.  Am I missing it?  Never have I heard of this before.  IF there was such corruption why are people not in jail?

There was a very big investigation and it did lead to the changes in our Aux status.  Not a lot of reason to discuss it on sites like this very often.  Ask any of your older squadron members who were around in the late 1990s and they will confirm it happened though not much info on it ever came out. 

got it......back to topic at hand, how will NCO's cahnge our "corrupt and failing" relationship with the AF?

Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 01, 2007, 08:57:50 PM
... A single copy of the final ROI (report of investigation) stuffed 10 large binders and filled an entire file drawer.  And it could not possibly have been more devastating, the bottom line: CAP was a thoroughly corrupt organization.

Okay- so we had this massive investigation with 10 large binders, and the bottom line conclusion was that CAP was a thoroughly corrupt organization.  What did CAP do to eliminate the corruption and prevent its recurrance?

It sounds like this may have been the driving force behind the wing banker plan. Getting an unqualified audit means all monies are properly accounted for. If an outside, professional accounting firm can make this determination, it should help with our relationship with the AF.

I am NOT an expert o CAP history but I have read and from what I understand, when CAP was founded back in 1941, it was designed to be an "officer" program. It was made up pilots. Pilots in the military are traditionally officers. The cadet program was founded to be an officer trainee program to produce furture CAP officers. SO, the roots of CAP are the officer corps. Now folks are talking about intorducing enlisted ranks. Yes iI know the regs call for enlisted ranks. That was a curteousy extendd to CAP members that were previously enlisted ( Its hard for true NCO's to put on bars) ;D but In my 23 years of CAP membership, I have only once seen a member choose to be a CAP NCO ( he's a retired USMC Gunny) and eventually came over to the dark side of the officer corps.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2007, 06:07:33 PM
The Air Force regulations back this up:

Quote2.18. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all should be rendered by standing at attention and facing the flag. When not in uniform, persons should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, with the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute if outdoors and indoors if in formation and wearing appropriate headdress. If indoors and without headdress, military members should stand at attention, remain silent, and face the flag. Military members in uniform do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

However, what needs to be done is change the CAP regulation.  Now, if this was done would it effectively outlaw saying the Pledge at a CAP activity?  After all, who would be leading and saying the pledge if everybody else is standing silent?  Just the people in civies or CAP uniform?  The AF reg doesn't give any guidance to non-formation pledges of allegience, which is how I've usually seen it done. 

Without really wanting to spilt hairs, CAP members are not "military members".....so it could be argued that CAP personnel, as members of the USAF civilian auxiliary, can generally recite the pledge at meetings, ceremonies, and so  forth, especially since, by federal statute, we are USAF Aux ONLY when on AFAM!

Now, does this create needless confusion and the wrong perception of the AD military? That could be a justification for tailoring the CAP reg to model military instructions.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 01, 2007, 09:14:41 PM
That is so strange that this "huge" investigation was conducted but it is not public knowledge.  I could see AF OSI investigating CAP-USAF, but not CORPORATE CAP.  Last time I looked everything outside of the CAP-USAF Offices were CORPORATE business.  That said, the MILITARY would be hard pressed to justify to a federal judge why it went on private property and conducted illegal investigation of a civil entity.  I could see the FBI stepping in but not the military.  I am sure those with some type of law background would cite the seperation between CAP Corporate and CAP-USAF.  One is government the other is private.
 
Freesom of Information alone would allow this report to be seen because it involves a private corporation. 

I don't believe the "we hate Pineda" crowd is driving the "nail in the coffin", but Pineda is doing that very well on his own!.  His recent actions seemed to go against AF wishes.  Thats what does it. 

How will your NCO corps help us in light of your examples you have placed before us?

The investigation happened, I think it was 1999 or 2000.....I believe there was, in fact, FBI involvement.....NHQ was raided, computers and records seized.

It may not have been public knowledge at the time....don't know why, I'm not a decision maker at that level, just have good information sources

C'mon this guy is a troll!!!!   Does anyone believe that any national staff member, even a "straight-shooting, tell it like it is" NCO would personaly insult a CAP member he didn't know on a public site and then say:

QuoteThe dismay, frustration, and resentment I see on this website speaks volumes about how CAP is a dismal failure; failure to lead, failure to train, failure - time after time - to simply do the right thing.

I could believe someone in this position being critical of certain aspects of the organization, and we need that.  But, no one at the top levels of CAP is going to call the organization a failure, and furthermore they wouldn't bring up the OSI investigation and open up that whole can of worms. 

However, this is a smart troll since they didn't pick anyone obvious to imitate such as the national commander.  Kudos for fooling everyone.

I feel sorry for the real Chiafos when he learns how dreadfully his name has been misused. 

Mikey, and others:

I remember the investigation, and I remember how sweeping it was, although it did not seem to creep down to the unit level, where the members were actually doing the jobs.  There were some criminal charges, but since they all occured at "Echelons above reality" it did not concern me greatly, nor did it affect our day-to-day operations except in terms of access to DRMO's.  Also, I don't remember who was charged, nor did I concern myself with the legal outcomes.

I didn't break any laws, and my records were open to any investigator who wanted to see them.  Of course, since my unit didn't have any money, there wasn't anything to steal in the first place.

And if I may, some of us here are RLO's.  (Real, Live, Officers).  ALL of the CAP NCO's are RLNCO's.  The training and experience that we had in the military places us in a unique position to see and analyze the problems facing CAP, and to come up with solutions based on what we know works in the RealMilitary.  Creating a corps of NCO's with that kind of credibility is a good idea, since the RLO's are visually indistinguishable from other CAP officers.  

OK, I think that's about enough of that.