Wear of military service uniforms by retired officers while on CAP duty

[Rangersigo]

Was referring to the Armed Services - not CAP....

[JohnKachenmeister]

As a captain, I commanded a headquarters company that had a brigadier general and his staff of horse-holders, all full colonels.  I told them when the formations would be and what uniform to wear, when and where the PT test was, and what time chow would be.  

I also let a colonel perform alternate drill in Chicago for almost a year until he found another O-6 vacancy when his job transfered him.  Neither one of us better run for President, since Michael Moore will call us "Draft Dodgers."

[Dragoon]

This is an interesting conversation.  For those who feel that former miltary officers should start at E-1, my guess never served in the Armed Forces as an Officer.  If CAP is an AF Auxiliary, you would have to honor the prior service.  If you transfer between services, for that matter a CEO of one Company does not enter as a entry level job - there is a recognition of their service and accomplishments.  Rank is a measure of experience and leadership - but mostly leadership.  If we are not going to model the AF, I aggree we should simply go to titles rather than rank.  And in cases of ES service, the position outweighs the ranks anyway.  For those that say CPTs do not command COLs in the service, technically that is not true as most are assigned to a headquarters element of some sort, that are administratively commanded by a junior officer. 

I agree that someone walking off the street should not be appointed to an advanced grade unless they have the professional skill that warrants it (Med, Chap, MD, etc.) which is very similar to the Armed Services.

I would agree that taking off Army oak leaves and putting on USAF stripes would feel...wrong.

However, taking off Army oak leaves and putting on CAP stripes (which wouldn't look like USAF stripes) would be acceptable.

CAP is not the Air Force.  If it was, Air Force Second Lieutanants would salute our Majors.  Is doesn't happen and it ain't gonna.  Why not embrace our unique contribution to the team by having a unique grade structure (or position structure, or whatever works best).

Better to have something unique to ourselves.  That doesn't make us "less Air Force" any more than my friend the USAF GS-13 civilian isn't Air Force.  He IS part of the team - just neither enlisted nor officer.

Heck, the SECAF does fine without General's stars and other bling....

[Dragoon]

Dragoon, my friend, you move from the Army to the AF you're keeping your grade. You move from Cav to Aviation you're keeping your grade. You move from the military to CAP you're keeping your grade. Your having the grade has ZERO to do with your MOS/AFSC & EVERYTHING to do with you as having attained a level of military leadership. The federal govt certifies to you that this person meets level X, they get level X, and don't think for a second you have the right to believe CAP is better than them & they don't deserve it. That's what it is & always will be, period.

Not actually true.

1.  First, CAP doesn't let Colonels and Generals keep their grade, so it's not a hard and fast rule.  The Air Force has upheld this.  Because CAP isn't better, it's different.

2.  More importantly, while you are correct that interservice transfers keep grade intact for officers, that's because those transfers only occur if the officer has the specific skills necessary to function at the same level in the required job.  I'm not aware of anyone being transferred recently because of "level of military leadership."  Each service has more of that than they can handle.  The transfer occurs if the guy has the skills to function at that paygrade in a specific job in that new service.  So yeah, skills DO matter.

3.  Finally, this whole premise is based on transfers between U.S. uniformed services.  CAP isn't one of these.  Never has been, never will be.  If it was, then active duty folks woudn't be allowed to join (can't be Army and USAF at the same time.)

As for a distinctive grade system, why? We are part of the AF family & need to act like it.
We do work for them on a regular basis, and now that our mission is evolving I believe we'll be working directly with them on AF tasks much more regularly. They're negotiating right now to put CAP medical personnel, in uniform, in AF hospitals, maybe even deployed in uniform on paid contracts or w/ special reserve commissions (that's a question w/ Chaplains also).

There are several of "parts of the AF family" who have distinctive grade insignia and uniforms.  Check out Air Force Instruction 36-801  (Uniforms for Civilian Employees), especially Chapter 3. http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-801/afi36-801.pdf

That chapter describes the uniforms for USAF civilian police and guards.

They don't wear BDUs.  Instead, unlike SP's they wear police style uniforms.
They have grades like "Chief" and "Assistant Chief" instead of "Colonel" and "Major"

And yet these folks do a heck of a lot more work, side by side with the uniformed members of USAF than we ever will.  Are they not "part of the USAF family?"

And what about the civilians?  They have their own grade system (GS 1-15 and SES).  Certainly they are part of the USAF family.

Bottom line - while aligning CAP with the military side of USAF is one option, it is only one option out of several.  And all are equally "Air Force."  Being on the team doesn't have to mean looking like a warrior.

[DNall]

You re-branch in the Army, you get sent to the new training, they don't drop your grade at any point. Even less of a hassle in the AF. Why you think ex-pilots command space units.

I'd argue that it isn't in fact different. The thing w/ Col & above is those grades are specifically reserved for particular command positions, but no I thnk it's a travesty that we'd take a LtGen & reduce him to LtCol. That's rediculous. At very least they should get MajGen, & then only cause that's as high as we got.

Being an NCO is about skill expertise, being an officer is about the skill of leading/managing people/resources/etc.

We are part of the AF, even if only part of the time & formally civilians throughout. We're still not a seperate org free to do as we please. We're ruled by Congress & even in the weakest interpretation by a govt board with partially AF appointed members... and it took a LOT of legal stretching to get it that loose. It's working itself back the other way now & if you don't like that you can talk to your congressman.

We are not AF civilian employees. I grant that we're in this loose "AF-family" status as termed by CAP-USAF, but we're working toward & have been for many years, becoming a full partner in the "total-force" & that doesn't include civilian food service workers.

We're not trying to just emulate an AF based concept to run our own private little club, we're trying to integrate into the AF as a full partner: Active - Reserve - ANG - Auxiliary. What we're doing here is not a game, it's not for fun, & it's not the boy scouts, or the rescue club. We exist to accomplish all missions of the AF in partnership with them & within the minimal boundries set by congress (no assigned combat missions, combat support okay).

[Dragoon]

I'd argue that it isn't in fact different. The thing w/ Col & above is those grades are specifically reserved for particular command positions, but no I thnk it's a travesty that we'd take a LtGen & reduce him to LtCol. That's rediculous. At very least they should get MajGen, & then only cause that's as high as we got.

And then that Major General can just serve as a squadron Aerospace Ed officer, because he only joined because his granddaughter is in the program.

Nope - rank should come with inherent responsiblity.  You want to wear 2 stars, you do a 2 star job.  And since we only have one of these at a time......

Being an NCO is about skill expertise, being an officer is about the skill of leading/managing people/resources/etc. .

Right.  That's why USAF commissions pilots...

We are not AF civilian employees. I grant that we're in this loose "AF-family" status as termed by CAP-USAF, but we're working toward & have been for many years, becoming a full partner in the "total-force" & that doesn't include civilian food service workers. .

First, if the "food service worker" is a government civilian (not a contractor) then YES THEY ARE PART  OF THE TOTAL FORCE.   It is the height of arrogance to think otherwise. 

Take a look around the Pentagon - half the USAF folks up there are civilians.  Including the Assistant Secretarys of every part of the Air Force. Not to mention all the civilian intell analyists, budget folks, maintenance personel, security guards, administrative officers, weapons system program managers....the list goes on and on. 

None of these guys wears a USAF military uniform (except when deployed).  None of them feels the need to be called "Major" or "Colonel."     "Mister" does fine.  And then they go about the daily business of the Air Force.  Working a lot closer to them than we could ever hope to.  Some of them work for Generals.  Others are in charge of Generals.  And it all works out just fine.

How can you possibly say they don't count, and yet the Civil Air Patrol does?

We're not trying to just emulate an AF based concept to run our own private little club, we're trying to integrate into the AF as a full partner: Active - Reserve - ANG - Auxiliary. What we're doing here is not a game, it's not for fun, & it's not the boy scouts, or the rescue club. We exist to accomplish all missions of the AF in partnership with them & within the minimal boundries set by congress (no assigned combat missions, combat support okay).

And there is nothing that prevents us from being a full partner without warrior uniforms, titles and grade insignia.

[DNall]

You know responsiblity isn't consistent from job to job. Even in cAP we make all our Wg CCs a Col, but some of those wings have 3000 members & 30 planes, while some have 200 members & 7 Sqs w/ no planes (something like that for DC). My GROUP down here covers more teritory than Iowa, we got 1000 members in 16 Sqs & more planes than most wings, & do more missions than most wings, have more direct coordination w/ state/local authorities & govt realtions than most wings... yet it's commanded by a Major, what's up with that?

It's not dif in the AF. The time you spend at AWC is not the same as being a Wing CC, which isn't the same as moving on from there to a mid-level staff job at a NAF, or from there to commanding an AFROTC det. That's just the one person too, it's an even bigger gap between specialities.


I know it looks funny when a LtCol works their way up & then, because people don't retire or get forced out of CAP like they do the military, steps back down to a lesser job. Still a LtGen brings something more to the table than does a LtCol. We give advanced promotions for teachers, doctors, A&Ps, lawyers all sorts of things that don't always get used at all. Why would we insult or discourage the participation of that senior military leader that can bring so much more to CAP?

What can we do to mitigate the wierd look of it? You want a mandatory retirement age like some SDFs? You want to go the Iowa route & transfer field grade officers to Wg - I kinda like that one. I don't know we can talk about some ideas, but I don't think it's that big a problem.

The problem isn't that appearance though. It's that we put an inexperienced junior officer in charge of a unit that should be commanded by someone with many years of training & experience in preperation for that critical role. It would be much better fo us if we made our grade actually meaningful so they can equate to leadership slots in terms of qualificaitons rather than what we promote someone to when they've only been in six months.


Junior officer pilots are trained to be officers FIRST & THEN given the chance to learn a speciality as a pilot. As junior officers, like all other junior officer, they are still learning & developing, as they will be for their whole career. By the time they're a flight lead or on up to Sq CC or significant staff positions, they are officering up mighty strong. That officer doesn't need to know the wire route that controls his elevators. He needs to know the elevators don't work & be able to order an NCO to fix it even though that NCO is an expert & is confident the pilot is just wrong.


Far as total force... yes thsoe people are part of the family, but they aren't interchangable. That's what we're going for is interoperable. The ability of a properly trained & qual'd CAP officer to stand in for an AF officer in domestic non-combat roles approved by AF.


This isn't about uniforms, though I think they help us bond together on the same team & think they reflect the level of professional respect they have for us in their similiarity, or lack thereof depending on how you look at it. The AF wants us in those unifroms, always has. They want us acting like the reserves, and always have. Congress wants us to get our act together & serve the AF, and always has. Moving away from 65 years of military tradition & breaking the cultural identity we have with the AF is a bad thing thats erves neither of us. I don't see where anything else matters.

[Dragoon]

Far as total force... yes those people are part of the family, but they aren't interchangeable. That's what we're going for is interoperable. The ability of a properly trained & qual'd CAP officer to stand in for an AF officer in domestic non-combat roles approved by AF.

"Interchangeable" and "Interoperable" are very different things.

The thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians are interoperable with their military counterparts.  As I've said, military sometimes work for these guys, and the civilians sometimes work for the military.

There are uniformed public affairs officers and civilian public affairs officers in USAF.  Often working side by side.
Ditto doctors, lawyers, security forces, logistics technicians etc. etc.

They are not "interchangeable," though.  There are certain things (like flying fighters) that the civilians aren't going to do.  And surprisingly enough, neither are we.  Nor do we need to , in order to play a larger role.

This isn't about uniforms, though I think they help us bond together on the same team & think they reflect the level of professional respect they have for us in their similarity, or lack thereof depending on how you look at it. The AF wants us in those uniforms, always has. They want us acting like the reserves, and always have. Congress wants us to get our act together & serve the AF, and always has. Moving away from 65 years of military tradition & breaking the cultural identity we have with the AF is a bad thing thats erves neither of us. I don't see where anything else matters.

If USAF wanted us all in USAF suits, we'd be wearing them today.  But they don't.  They ALLOW some of us (the thin and clean shaven ones) to wear those uniforms.  And yet, they are more than happy to have the "fat and fuzzies"  supporting USAF missions.  In 25+ years I have never had a USAF evaluator tell me "I sure wish you guys acted more like the Reserves."

Congress wants us to help USAF.  But that doesn't mean they give a crap about what we wear when we're doing it, or what titles we call ourselves.  They only care about the capability we bring to the table.

You are absolutely right that uniforms provide esprit de corps.  CAP started wearing military uniforms with bright red epaulets (now THAT stood out) and no grade system.  Just position titles.  That's our original heritage.  And our "65 years of military tradition" includes the smurf suit, the golf shirt and the blazer!

When a USAF civilian deploys, he may wear BDUs.  And he should, because he's on the team. But they don't pin captain's bars on him.  Even if his job involves supervising Lts and NCOs.  He's a USAF civilian.  And his uniform identifies him as such.

This would be one route for CAP.  Put everyone, regardless of weight or grooming, in USAF suits, but with very specific insignia to make it clear that we were USAF auxiliarist.  Right down to whatever sort of grade structure we feel we need to run a good CAP (flight officers anyone?).  And no pretenses as to where we fit in the United States Air Force.  We are the Auxiliary.  We should be proud of that.  And it might even get us more acceptance.

When I was a young Army Captain just back into CAP, I had a very different mindset.  "Why can't  they all be more like me?"  Humility came quickly, as I figured out how different running an underfunded volunteer organization was from a full time military unit. I saw how talent wasn't tied to grade, and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  CAP has a whole bunch of problems with training and accountability, but I'm not sure military officer grade is key to the solution.

Way back during the Cold War, my squadron (cavalry, not CAP) visited communist East Berlin. On thing I noticed there was that almost everyone, from the firemen to the streetsweepers to the postmaster, had very snappy military-style uniforms.  I don't think it helped them a whole lot.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Snappy military uniforms are a German tradition!

[Hawk200]

... and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  ....

Right now, we don't spend any time on teaching any new senior members about formations or uniform wear. I think we should.

When I started a job here that wore a uniform, I was told how it was to be worn, and have been corrected a few times when I forgot my nametag. If you don't have your shirt tucked in; your shoes need to be tied; or you need to shave, one of the managers will point it out to you. Does this sound like a military organization? It's not: I deliver pizza for a living. None of the managers, nor the owner have any military experience. If I'm held to a uniform standard delivering pizza, CAP needs to be pickier about its uniforms being worn.

What's my point? That we need to train on how to wear a uniform before we start teaching search techniques and supply. And like it or not, proper uniform wear is airmanship.

[Dragoon]

What's my point? That we need to train on how to wear a uniform before we start teaching search techniques and supply. And like it or not, proper uniform wear is airmanship.

What I meant by airmanship was handling airplanes and aviation crew duties in a safe and effective manner.   Which to me seems a bit more critical than explaining the differences between the four different CAP name plates and which one goes on what suit...(thanks a lot, National HQ)

(by the way, this this is coming from a guy who meets weight and grooming standards, and owns every freakin' uniform CAP authorizes, except the new Corporate service dress, and I'll probably pick that up soon.    And I beat the heck out of folks who wear them incorrectly.)

But we only have so many hours a month to train.  I would looooove everyone to look like USAF posterboys. But I know how much time that takes to maintain.  And, given a choice, I'd rather have competent aircrews, search team members and unit administrators.  Much better trained than we have today.  Which seems like a good place to put our valuable training time.

The key to uniforms is to keep them simple.  Less choices.  Less bling.  Less things for our members to screw up.  So they can focus on doing their jobs better, and spend less time on uniform-trivia.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

[DogCollar]

You're right about the uniform!  It should be clean, crisp and SIMPLE.  All the patches, and ribbons, nameplates, insignia...boy, some peoples uniform shirts weigh more than I do! (Not literally!!)

[Hawk200]

What I meant by airmanship was handling airplanes and aviation crew duties in a safe and effective manner. 

I see we're looking at different types of airmanship. You were looking at the flight aspect, I was looking at it more as being an Air Force member (or it's associated organization. Training either way is important, I will definitely agree with that.

Which to me seems a bit more critical than explaining the differences between the four different CAP name plates and which one goes on what suit...(thanks a lot, National HQ)

The biggest part I have to agree with is the multitude of uniform variations. It is important that all uniforms be worn correctly. However, it is irresponsible to produce so many that it detracts from other important training matters.

(by the way, this this is coming from a guy who meets weight and grooming standards, and owns every freakin' uniform CAP authorizes, except the new Corporate service dress, and I'll probably pick that up soon.    And I beat the heck out of folks who wear them incorrectly.)

If you own every one authorized, I'd say you have more money than I do. (If you ever are inclined to share any, I'd volunteer to accept some.  ).  Keep wearing them correctly. If they can't learn by training, then maybe they'll learn by your example(Which is another reason why it's important to wear them properly.)

But we only have so many hours a month to train.  I would looooove everyone to look like USAF posterboys. But I know how much time that takes to maintain. 

Pretty much every AF member should be a "posterboy". It's a standard. Those that don't meet it find themselves with constant hassles. But it's like riding a bike, once you're up to speed, it's really not hard to stay there.

And, given a choice, I'd rather have competent aircrews, search team members and unit administrators.  Much better trained than we have today.  Which seems like a good place to put our valuable training time.

I agree we need the qualified people, but nobody jumps straight into the job. In the military, you don't learn how to work on a plane, or learn plumbing, or shuffle paperwork first. You get a uniform, and learn how to wear it. Then you learn to march. Then you get other "foundation" skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you would rather put up the building without the foundation.

I think that's a disservice to those without mlitary background. We expect them to wear a uniform properly, but don't teach them how. We expect them to be officers, but never train them. I think CAP needs to get away from the trial by fire, and start doing the training.

The key to uniforms is to keep them simple.  Less choices.  Less bling.  Less things for our members to screw up.  So they can focus on doing their jobs better, and spend less time on uniform-trivia.

Agreed, wholeheartedly, and a thousand times. We could stand to be a lot simpler.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

I have a feeling that this is an inside joke that I'm not privy to, probably coming here after it was initially said. However, I like it, it's quite true. And with the permission of the original author, I would like permission to use it in the future.

[Dragoon]

If you own every one authorized, I'd say you have more money than I do.

Or I just spend it poorly.  I've even got the yellow flight scarf.  It's up on my bookshelf next to my Matchbox CAP NASCAR racer.  (together, they're my "what were they thinking?" collection.)

I agree we need the qualified people, but nobody jumps straight into the job. In the military, you don't learn how to work on a plane, or learn plumbing, or shuffle paperwork first. You get a uniform, and learn how to wear it. Then you learn to march. Then you get other "foundation" skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you would rather put up the building without the foundation.

Nope. I'm just not sure that learning how to march is a foundation skill for us.  Do we actually think we'd be more effective at SAR, for example, if we could correctly execute a right oblique?

Here's a thought.  Let's say, for a minute, that Air Force basic training is about 6 weeks long, and the average tech school is 26 weeks long.  At 8 hours a day (yeah right) 6 days a week, that's about 1536 training hours.

Let's say a full 3 weeks at 8 hours a day is devoted to uniform wear training (my guess its less) during this training.  That's  about 144  hours,  or about 10 percent of the training time.

Now, let's look at CAP.  Since it's 6 months from member to second lieutenant, we've got

8 or so hours of Level 1
3 hours a week for 26 weeks (I'm assuming the guy goes to every single meeting)
3 weekend activities focused on training him (as opposed to just driving cadets or such).  I'm being generous here.
For a total of....134 hours.

That means, percentage wise, we can afford an hour and a half of uniform instruction!  That's a little more that the block in Level 1!

With that much instruction, we're never going to be as good.  And if we spend the the time the Active Force spends....oh wait, we can't.  We've only got 134 hours and we need 144!

Of course this assumes that every single hour of those six months is spent training the new member.  And we all know that ain't true.  Because we don't have dedicated Instructors to do nothing but train new members. Even if added 6 weeks of full weekend training for Officers, we still aren't even close to the hours USAF gets to train for E-1 Airmen!

And remember, in that limited training time, we have to teach the guy things like GES, Cadet Protection, his tech track, perhaps an ES rating, how get get reimbursements, etc. etc.

We used to be able to leverage the Basic Training that most of our draft age members already had.  But those days are gone.  Our SM recruits come to us with no military knowledge beyond seeing Saving Private Ryan.  Can we afford the time to bring them up to Basic Training speed, or is it best to mold the organization to the workforce?

We have to set priorities, and accept that we cannot do everyting to the standards of those with 100 times our resources and time.  We can't do it all.

I'd rather have us finding all our search targets, accounting for all our funds and equipment, etc etc than worrying about "do we look as good as the Air Force?"

(that doesn't mean we should look like slobs.  But, for example, I don't think killing saluting like CGAUX did would be the death of CAP.  Crashing planes is the death of CAP.  Or at least its members.)

Like the CAP-USAF Commander said a year or so ago "We can do anything.  But we can't do everything.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

I have a feeling that this is an inside joke that I'm not privy to, probably coming here after it was initially said. However, I like it, it's quite true. And with the permission of the original author, I would like permission to use it in the future.

I wish I could remember where I heard it.  I guess if you pay homage to the unknown originator, he won't be too upset.

[DNall]

"Interchangeable" and "Interoperable" are very different things.
-snip- civilians interoperable...
They are not "interchangeable," though.  There are certain things (like flying fighters) that the civilians aren't going to do.  And surprisingly enough, neither are we.  Nor do we need to , in order to play a larger role.

yeah we're trying to be careful what words we use. Interoperable means you can work WITH them, interchangable means you can replace them. We're talking about replacement in certain jobs on a part-time basis, primarily to cover their short-staff situations & give them a break every so often w/o having to force guard reserve troops to duty away from their jobs & family. The only restriction right now is Congress stating to AF that only non-combat missions will be assigned. That doesn't make us non-combatants though.

In some crazy theoretical funtime dream world... it's possible (legal now but not forseeablly realistic) for a CAP officer to stand watch as a shift or floor supervisor in a combat command & control center making use of force decisions & passing orders to military personnel. There are scenerios where DoD civilians do simliar things, but they are never allowed to be operators, where we are. When on mission, we are pretty much in the military. There's legal distinctions I understand, but there are even larger legal distinctions between CAP member in that capacity to AF civilians.

What I'd like to do, long-term after we get our hosue in order & prove it to everyone, is make some changes in the law to have CAP treated like a federal level SDF. That means you are bound by UCMJ, etc.; your grade is meaningless day-to-day, but when on active duty for mission or augmentation then it counts within restrictions (like how the Army views branches, or a JA officer can't come order a line officer around in an operational capacity). That's WAY down the road though, 10-15-20 years out. That's not why we'd understake these changes, it's just the natural evolution that may occur if the current logic is carried to fruition beyond the goals we're shooting for.

We're going for interoperable now, a high degree of but not complete interchangability in the really long term.

If USAF wanted us all in USAF suits, we'd be wearing them today.  But they don't.  They ALLOW some of us (the thin and clean shaven ones) to wear those uniforms.  And yet, they are more than happy to have the "fat and fuzzies"  supporting USAF missions.  In 25+ years I have never had a USAF evaluator tell me "I sure wish you guys acted more like the Reserves."

Congress wants us to help USAF.  But that doesn't mean they give a crap about what we wear when we're doing it, or what titles we call ourselves.  They only care about the capability we bring to the table.

You are absolutely right that uniforms provide esprit de corps.  CAP started wearing military uniforms with bright red epaulets (now THAT stood out) and no grade system.  Just position titles.  That's our original heritage.  And our "65 years of military tradition" includes the smurf suit, the golf shirt and the blazer!

When a USAF civilian deploys, he may wear BDUs.  And he should, because he's on the team. But they don't pin captain's bars on him.  Even if his job involves supervising Lts and NCOs.  He's a USAF civilian.  And his uniform identifies him as such.

This would be one route for CAP.  Put everyone, regardless of weight or grooming, in USAF suits, but with very specific insignia to make it clear that we were USAF auxiliarist.  Right down to whatever sort of grade structure we feel we need to run a good CAP (flight officers anyone?).  And no pretenses as to where we fit in the United States Air Force.  We are the Auxiliary.  We should be proud of that.  And it might even get us more acceptance.

When I was a young Army Captain just back into CAP, I had a very different mindset.  "Why can't  they all be more like me?"  Humility came quickly, as I figured out how different running an underfunded volunteer organization was from a full time military unit. I saw how talent wasn't tied to grade, and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  CAP has a whole bunch of problems with training and accountability, but I'm not sure military officer grade is key to the solution.

Way back during the Cold War, my squadron (cavalry, not CAP) visited communist East Berlin. On thing I noticed there was that almost everyone, from the firemen to the streetsweepers to the postmaster, had very snappy military-style uniforms.  I don't think it helped them a whole lot.

We DID have military grade in the very begining during WWII & ever since. Check your history on that one. We've always been in the AF uniform w/ minor varriations to distinguish us.

The AF never proposed, authorized, or accepted corporate-style uniforms. They introduced ht/wt/grooming standards, CAP complained, CAP was given 20% varriation.... that's it. The logic there indicates if you can't fit it you should have gone at that time. Instead CAP made an end run & created corporate-style business attire that could NOT be associated with any branch of the military & did NOT appear to be a uniform. AF accepted that & moved on even though it is not what they originally wanted.

Congress now... I worked there till this past summer, I pretty much know what most individual members of congress (the house more than the senate & not so much the new ones) thinks about CAP, what motivates that opinion, and what if anything they want to see from CAP & the AF in the future.

They were pissed at CAP in 2000, but cut us some slack while making changes to force us in line. What they've gotten was no change to the pre-2000 situation. That means what they did didn't work, but trust me when I tell you they blame us for continuing to be bad instead of themselves for not fixing it right. No matter what happens now, they will take serious historical massive org altering action one way or the other, I'd guess in 2-3 years unless their hand is forced sooner. That move will be to execute some version of the original bill written by the House Armed Services Cmte in 99 (which is strong direct AF control), or it will be to dissolve CAP. Which way that goes will be based on what happens between now & then to make CAP indispensible to AF & so culturally identified as a part that it would be as though they were losing an arm that can't be replaced.

The only reason CAP exists, at least as far as Congress is concerned, is to help the AF do their job better, faster, cheaper. Right now that's not the case & we're not on track to making it the case.

The uniforms are about cultural identity. You take them away & we're no longer affiliated with the AF. It doesn't matter what anything says on paper or who pays the bills, just the culture. If you're a DoD employee getting a paycheck & working in an AF office everyday then you're living in their culture & accepted after you prove yourself, never on sight. That's a big deal too cause we aren't going to be working with these people on a daily basis. We need to have them see our qualifications & trust that we are competent to give & take orders in defense of the country.

We can be supermen at our current job & that doesn't make AF feel like we're capable of holding the line at home. We do need to fix our performance, and I'd tell you that starts with fixing our people. This is ultimately a military organizations exising to do missions of the AF. We need to get in line or move on.

[ZigZag911]

  If you transfer between services, for that matter a CEO of one Company does not enter as a entry level job - there is a recognition of their service and accomplishments. 

I believe also, however, that if you transfer between services there is some sort of required orientation (accelerated officer basic course?) to the new service.

I'm all for recognizing the grade earned in prior service by military personnel --A FTER they complete initial CAP orientation.

[DNall]

Absolutely. Blue to green, how does that work? I think you do Officer Basic Course which combines your tech school & the equiv of AF's ASBC (notice that doesn't say ACSC, dif courses). Not positive. On the enlisted side there's a Warrior Transition course (2-3 weeks of basic combat training). Coming Army to AF I don't know, I think you just go to tech school.

Not to blow up my argument, but your grade really isn't automatic either. They have actual slots that are open which are auth particular grades & they'll give you the highest one you're qual'd for, but it's possible if no captain slots are open for them to offer you a 1Lt slot & it's up to you to take it or not.

That's not really the thing though. CAP members may be legally civilians, but the org belongs to the AF, and at very least we need to be interoperable dealing them a lot... that means everyone we can get with military experience is good for us, especially when they are senior officers. Certainly those same people do take it as an insult when we demote them, and well they should, espeially since we've established CAP service isn't as challenging as military service. I'm all for a special transition course to refresh their military & comm skills, as well as orient them quite intensively to CAP. I think that's certainly reasonable, and in practical terms I see CAP as just a dif specialty.

[JohnKachenmeister]

When I went to advanced officer school, we had a captain (O-3 type) who appeared to be completely clueless, such that I wondeed how he managed to get through his platoon time.

Being the blunt and tactless fellow that I am, I asked him.

Turns out he was ex-Navy.  Was a Lieutenant (also O-3, for you Doggies and Zoomies) on active duty, and there was no Navy reserve slot near his home.  He found a captain slot in an Army reserve unit.  They took him in at his grade, and required that he complete officer advanced school. 

Once we found that out, we all pitched in and helped him out, rather than just giving him "What the heck???" looks when he asked dumb questions and had no idea how to write an operations order.

Sort of like the level of understanding you reach when your least-productive co-worker shows you his medal from the Special Olympics.

[Dragoon]

yeah we're trying to be careful what words we use. Interoperable means you can work WITH them, interchangable means you can replace them. We're talking about replacement in certain jobs on a part-time basis, primarily to cover their short-staff situations & give them a break every so often w/o having to force guard reserve troops to duty away from their jobs & family. The only restriction right now is Congress stating to AF that only non-combat missions will be assigned. That doesn't make us non-combatants though.

I get the difference and in fact pointed it out in my previous message.  I think "interchangeable" is not anywhere near as critical as "interoperable."  I don't see USAF clamouring for plus ups from CAP to fill USAF jobs.  That's what Reserve Component Individual Mobilization Augmentees are for.   Not that it can't happen on a limited basis (the handful of chaplains, for example).   But you don't need officer grade to be a Chaplain.  Note that there are military and USAF civilian doctors working side by side in USAF clinics.  No problem at all. 

But shouldn't we worry most about doing those things that USAF can't do - like fly light planes in support of their missions - than duplicating functions they can do and hope the need us to do them?

There are scenerios where DoD civilians do simliar things, but they are never allowed to be operators, where we are. When on mission, we are pretty much in the military. There's legal distinctions I understand, but there are even larger legal distinctions between CAP member in that capacity to AF civilians.

First, you have to give a clear definition of "Operator"

Second, I don't believe when on a mission we are pretty much "in the military."  If we were, UCMJ would apply, we could be deployed to combat zones, etc. etc..  We are an "instrumentality of the Air Force."  Which ain't the same thing.

We're going for interoperable now, a high degree of but not complete interchangability in the really long term.

I'm with you on the interoperable.  I haven't yet seen the case made for interchageable.  By "the case" I mean "describe the need and justify the pain needed to fill it.

If we raise the standards too high in the interest of interchangeablility, we'll have to kick out some of the same members who joined us because they couldn't meet the standards to join the actual military.[/quote]

We DID have military grade in the very begining during WWII & ever since. Check your history on that one. We've always been in the AF uniform w/ minor varriations to distinguish us. .

Sorry, you're mistaken.  This was briefed to the National Board by the CAP National Historian Col Leonard A. Blascovich, a few years back when they were discussing changes to the rank structure..  Drop him a line at len_b@ix.netcom.com.  CAP did not always have grade insignia.

The only reason CAP exists, at least as far as Congress is concerned, is to help the AF do their job better, faster, cheaper. Right now that's not the case & we're not on track to making it the case.

Yup, as I stated, Congress only cares about the capability we bring to the table.  They don't care if we call ourselves "Majors" or "Grand Poobahs."

The uniforms are about cultural identity. You take them away & we're no longer affiliated with the AF. It doesn't matter what anything says on paper or who pays the bills, just the culture.

I'm a big fan of USAF uniforms - USAF civilians wear 'em to.  We are affiliated, and showing that is a good thing.  I'm just not sure trying to turn us into "real USAF officers" is mission essential.

[Dragoon]

That's not really the thing though. CAP members may be legally civilians, but the org belongs to the AF, and at very least we need to be interoperable dealing them a lot... that means everyone we can get with military experience is good for us, especially when they are senior officers. Certainly those same people do take it as an insult when we demote them, and well they should, espeially since we've established CAP service isn't as challenging as military service. I'm all for a special transition course to refresh their military & comm skills, as well as orient them quite intensively to CAP. I think that's certainly reasonable, and in practical terms I see CAP as just a dif specialty.

I would agree that if someone tells a Lt Col that "sorry, you can't be a Lt Col here, you're just a 2d Lt", he's gonna get a little huffy.

But....truthfully, the guy isn't going into a Lt Col's job, so there is some validity to making him start where he's going to work.  And take the time to truly understand CAP.

One way to eliminate the ego thing is to say, "We don't have commissioned grades in CAP.  We use a flight officer system, which is unique to us, and is recognized by USAF for auxiliarists.  Because of your military experience, which we value, you will start as an FO-2 rather than an FO-1.  Plus, you will recieve waivers for several CAP schools based on your military education.  And if you choose to pursue CAP training and serve in positions of increased responsibility, you will quickly move up through the ranks.

No muss, no fuss.  Since it ain't eh same thing, no egos are hurt.  USAF knows who we are, doesn't attempt to confuse (or compare) us with their warfighting folks, and yet we are on the team and in uniform.