The Chief's Corner

[Hawk200]

-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.

[BillB]

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.

[DNall]

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!!

-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.

[AlphaSigOU]

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.

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.

[mikeylikey]

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???   

[Chief Chiafos]

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.

[Hawk200]

-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.

[lordmonar]

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....

[fyrfitrmedic]

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.

[mikeylikey]

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?

[RiverAux]

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:

(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:

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.

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. 

[Chief Chiafos]

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.

[lordmonar]

OSI investigates civilian contractors all the time. 

[mikeylikey]

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?

[RiverAux]

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. 

[mikeylikey]

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

[BlackKnight]

... 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?

[arajca]

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.

[flyguy06]

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) 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.

[ZigZag911]

The Air Force regulations back this up:

2.18. 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.