THE CHIEF'S UNIFORM GUIDE

[Hawk200]

First, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.

We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.

CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us.  They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's.  That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.

What's the 2-minute way to tell?

Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.

I would welcome it, but its not there.  That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.

You may say there isn't any, but I don't buy it. There are a lot of people here that say things that amount to "The Air Force needs to keep its nose out of our business." They discount any guidance that might be gained from the Air Force and its publications. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?

Civil Air Patrol is not in any way, shape or form a completely independent entity. We cannot, and would not stand on our own. Instead of fighting Air Force control, and discounting them, maybe we need to be pursuing it. And that will include getting rid of the people that act independently on issues, and do end runs around the Air Force.

[lordmonar]

First, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.

We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.

CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us.  They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's.  That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.

What's the 2-minute way to tell?

Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.

I would welcome it, but its not there.  That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.

You may say there isn't any, but I don't buy it. There are a lot of people here that say things that amount to "The Air Force needs to keep its nose out of our business." They discount any guidance that might be gained from the Air Force and its publications. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?

Civil Air Patrol is not in any way, shape or form a completely independent entity. We cannot, and would not stand on our own. Instead of fighting Air Force control, and discounting them, maybe we need to be pursuing it. And that will include getting rid of the people that act independently on issues, and do end runs around the Air Force.

I think you are confusing different issues.

AFI do not apply to us except in very limited circumstances....and that is the way congress, CAP and the USAF want it.
We are not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing....it is just a thing.

Whether or not we are completely independant and are moving closer or farther away from our relationship with the USAF is not the issue here.

It just means that the USAF uniform AFI is not our regulation.  Should it, could it, would it does not play here.  It is just the fact.

[RiverAux]

The Board of Governors is set up by federal law.  The AFI just re-states what the federal law is and talks about how the AF chooses its reps.

[Eclipse]

. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?

Discussing whether a given document or agency has authority has nothing to do with that document or agency's value to us as a guide.

It is a statement regrding the law, nothing else.

There is a legal Grand Canyon between "should" and "will".

As someone in authority in a given organizization, you can't go around telling people how things WILL be done, and then cite documents which have no authority in that organization.

[Eclipse]

The Board of Governors is set up by federal law.  The AFI just re-states what the federal law is and talks about how the AF chooses its reps.

Yo have to be more specific, this has been a discussion of 36-2903.  I don't recall anything about the BOG in with sideburn length.

Alsso, AFI's dictate how the USAF and other agencies will support and interact with us, not what we will do with them.

Because, of course, the USAF has no authority over a private corporation.

The uniform overisght comes form the fact that WE are wearing THEIR uniform.  However they have no authority to require us to wear it at all.

[Hawk200]

I think you are confusing different issues.

AFI do not apply to us except in very limited circumstances....and that is the way congress, CAP and the USAF want it. We are not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing....it is just a thing.

Whether or not we are completely independant and are moving closer or farther away from our relationship with the USAF is not the issue here.

It just means that the USAF uniform AFI is not our regulation.  Should it, could it, would it does not play here.  It is just the fact.

I'm not confusing issues here, you just don't know what I'm thinking. I'm well aware that most AFI's don't apply to us and we aren't required to follow them. I'm surprised that you even had that impression.

I'm not looking for compliance with Air Force pubs, with the exception of the ones that do apply to us. But I'm a little disturbed by the mindset of complete segregation from the Air Force. It shows here on a regular basis.

If a manual is unclear, some of the related Air Force pubs can provide a great deal of insight. What I'm seeing is a refusal to consider that avenue, that if it says "Air Force" as part of the pub title then it is valueless. I think that is where the danger is.

[Eclipse]

But I'm a little disturbed by the mindset of complete segregation from the Air Force. It shows here on a regular basis.

No one said that, no one implied that, and this is going in a circle.

[Hawk200]

On second thought, forget it. There's a little too much twisting in here to get the point across. And it's pointless to argue something when there's a complete refusal to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.

[RiverAux]

If a manual is unclear, some of the related Air Force pubs can provide a great deal of insight. What I'm seeing is a refusal to consider that avenue, that if it says "Air Force" as part of the pub title then it is valueless. I think that is where the danger is.[

In that situation the AF manual might help, but only if the AFI doesn't actual conflict with the CAPR (as it does in regards to the Pledge of Allegience -- discussed elsewhere).  But if something isn't in the CAPR at all, that doesn't mean that a relevant AFI can be applied to the situation.  

[Guardrail]

What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.

Hawk200 is right - it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.  And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

[Dragoon]

It's not that they have NO jurisdiction - it's that they have a rather limited jurisdiction.

Remember, by public law CAP is only their auxiliary part-time.  They have jurisdiction over our operations when we do USAF stuff.  But the rest is entirely up to CAP.

Now the argument as to whether this is the best way to be is a completely different one.  But it is the truth. 

[Eclipse]

What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity. 

I suggest you discuss this with your Congressman.  It was their idea, not mine.

...it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.  And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

...and yet you persist.

.And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

So...we've reached the point where anonymity actually INCREASES credibility?

[Guardrail]

What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity. 

I suggest you discuss this with your Congressman.  It was their idea, not mine.

...it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.  And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

...and yet you persist.

.And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

So...we've reached the point where anonymity actually INCREASES credibility?

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D1041%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">

[A.Member]

Remember, by public law CAP is only their auxiliary part-time.  They have jurisdiction over our operations when we do USAF stuff.  But the rest is entirely up to CAP.

I'm not too interested in jumping into this conversation (besides, I haven't been following it that closely) but in the sole interest of accuracy, I just want to clarify what Title 10 actually says about our role (my emphasis added):

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
     
(b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

[lordmonar]

What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.

Hawk200 is right - it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.  And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!) 

The USAF has no authority over its own auxiliary.

My name is Patrick M. Harris, Capt, CAP and MSgt, USAF.

We are arguing legalities here.  Hawk asserted that we should follow all the AFIs that we were required to follow the AFI's and that the USAF can dictate how we do business.

And that is simply not the case.  They can dictate how we do business when on AF Assigned Missions, because they are paying for them.  The can dictate how we conduct business on USAF installations.  They can dictate how we request and use USAF assets. 

But those AFIs and AFPD do not and cannot dictate how we do our corporate business.

That is all.

I agree.....that if we are lacking specific guidance in CAPRs about how to do business...going to the AFIs would be a good idea on finding out a way to do our business...but we are not obligated to doing so.

I think we should make sure that our policies and operating procedures match those of the USAF simply so that we are similar...improving our ability to work together.   But as Eclipse said...there is a vast difference between should and will.

[mikeylikey]

Since our primary mission is performing Air Force Missions, it would be in the best interest to always follow the guidance of the Air Force even if we are performing missions for other agencies and not the Air Force. 

Why have TWO sets of operating procedures, one AF, one non-AF.  If we dump the non-AF mentality, we can begin to align ourselves more closely with the organization that can turn us off tomorrow if they wished!  Just think how quick the Secretary of the Air Force can say "The Civil Air Patrol is no longer the AF Auxiliary, we will no longer assign any AF mission, nor will we approve any mission requests from federal agencies through the AF to CAP".

It could all end tomorrow.  It almost ended in 1980.  Some of you "older members" may recall the AF contemplating dumping CAP, some of the NHQ folks even went as far as approaching the Army to see if they would be interested in picking CAP up. 

We (all members) should get away from saying we are the Auxiliary only on AF assigned missions.  I know what is written on paper, but I think it is that way because those same members began contesting our status when we truly were the Auxiliary.  Train and conduct ourselves to the Air Force standard at all times as though we have to.  In the end it makes the organization better.  Quit using the "AUX ON, AUX OFF" excuse when it suits the situation.

[Major_Chuck]

I am Charles W.Cranford, Major CAP and Specialist Army National Guard...I

t should be stated that CAP-USAF has more control over us then people realize.  Regardless of what pot of money an activity is coming through, usually your State Director has a hand in it somehow, and in turn CAP-USAF (your Region LO).

Think about it.  Use of Federal and State military facilities.  Training opportunities on both the regional and national levels.  Our very own National Headquarters at Maxwell AFB.  Lose CAP-USAF support and the folks at Maxwell will be off looking to lease space somewhere.

Logistics support, DRMO access, transfering of surplus equipment -- all on the logistics side, usually supported by a CAP-USAF person moving the paperwork along.

Honor Guard Academy, Hawk Mountain, IACE.  All those good things we like to send our cadets on.  Lose CAP-USAF, kiss them goodbye without the support of the Air Force folks.

Lose CAP-USAF and you lose those fighting for our Air Force appropriation funds.  Are we willing to lose that?

[lordmonar]

We (all members) should get away from saying we are the Auxiliary only on AF assigned missions.

We can't.   The USAF won't let us.

[Eclipse]

Quit using the "AUX ON, AUX OFF" excuse when it suits the situation.

I'll quit doing that when Congress, the USAF, and our National Commander quits doing it.  Deal?

[Robert Hartigan]

I am Robert P. Hartigan, Major, CAP and honorary Belgian Royal Air Force Air Commodore and an Attorney-in-Fact... may I ask the point of adding all the other hats we might wear to make a point about the Chief's Uniform Guide?

BTW I have a Spaatz award but the Commodore thing is much cooler!