New CAP Chaplain uniform?

[pixelwonk]

Geez guys, don't make this into a Spanish Inquisition. 

[NIN]

Having seen situations like this (our wing chaplain has been requested to serve with the local NG chaplains when they do a de-mob of a unit returning from the SWA AOR, for example, and he's a fully involved member of the team. They treat him like they would any other Captain chaplain.. Period. He's even gotten to go with the NG chaplains to brief the higher-HQs on their process and such..), I would bet that the situation was a tactical one where the safety rules said "Everybody in K-pots..period!" and some forward thinking individual said "While you're at it, put these guys in ACUs so they don't stick out.."  and that was that.

Is it a problem?  I say "No." USAF personnel have, for YEARS, worn the uniform and patches of the non-USAF unit they're attached to.  They do it for the duration and then they stop doing it when they're done.

Now, if these said same chaplains were to arrive at a CAP encampment wearing their new-found ACUs and Auxiliary tapes, that would be an ENTIRELY different matter.

But it appears that this was done for the duration of a mobilization at the behest of the chain of command of the supported unit.  Smile, nod and continue on with life.

[ddelaney103]

Non concur.  Strenuously.

Military chaplains wear all the gear, sans arms, when serving in battlespace/gamespace, depending on whether it's real world or just an exercise.

For example, for our ORI "sky pilots" wore full harness and MOPP gear to do their jobs.  Same thing in-country.

CAP Chaplains don't serve in combat, period.  Likewise, CAP Chaplains should not be in the gamespace as players.  If they're supporting the exercise participants outside of gamespace, BDU's should be fine.

When these pictures get detached from the story, and they will, they will wander around the net leaving a trail of questions and mistaken ideas.  there's just no reason for it.

[CAP Producer]

As a PAO I think it's a win-win for us.

Our chaplains are being shown as part of the team and that is very cool.

This publicity will go a long way towards recruiting chaplains for CAP.

If a CAP chaplain can serve in his community and help the military once in a while we all win.

The uniforming is not a big deal as long as the rules are followed. My understanding is that the rule is you wear their (USA, USAF, USN, USMC) outfits with appropriate accoutrement's (your rank, service tape etc...) when working with them. We don't want our augmentees to be targets.

This is done with civilians all of the time in the warzone.

As far as other CAP members doing this kind of work. I just don't see it.

HC's must meet the same standards and have the same endorsements as military HC's. Hence they can be almost interchangeable and easily do this work.

Some very experienced and senior PAO's could be augmentees as an example. In my case I would be lost in an AF PAO's office and the work I could do would be somewhat limited without 1-2 weeks training on AF PA policy and procedures.

Most other CAP specialities with the exception of Legal Officers and Medical types have no comparison and the training time would be huge to bring them up to an acceptable standard.

Capt Al Pabon
Deputy Director, Public Affairs
North Central Region

[lordmonar]

I can't see how this is a win-win situation.

Yes externally it looks good.  The ACUs are sharp, they look professional and they show how we are interacting and training with the National Guard.

But interally it is a total loss.

They are in an unauthorised uniform...they wearing branch tapes for a branch that does not exist.  With NHQ posting on their web sight they have given the go ahead for any squadron commander to direct his people to do the same at his location.

How can your local squadron commander correct someone who is wearing the uniform inproperly when national does not do the same.

Let's all go back to the boonie hat thread and look at our comments there.  If FLWG chaplains can wear ACU's with USAF-AUX on their name tapes and national praises them for it, I see no problem with authorising boonie hats and brown A-2 with the USAF flight suit.

[Nick Critelli]

Different rules apply to CAP Chaplains:

Title 10 USC 9446(b):  " Use of Civil Air Patrol chaplains.--The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary determines appropriate."

Likewise the Secretary has the authority to assign them to assist any other military branch. The uniform that they wear would depend upon the situation and requirements of the assignment. 

When so tasked they are considered USAF Aux under Title 10 USC 9442.

[RiverAux]

The direct link to the article that was in the first post still works, but this article is no longer listed on the index of CAP News Online articles. 

This is absolutely the sort of work that CAP should be doing and eventually we should be wearing a uniform like that. 

However, different rules DO NOT apply to chaplains as cited by LTC Critelli.  The clause is essentially no different than the one under which any CAP member could augment for the AF.  I have no idea why they even inserted that particular statement as it is entirely redundant. 

I'm not outraged by it as I suspect, as I mentioned earlier and someone elaborated on, that someone in the NG gave them the uniform and they wore it out of politeness.  Yes, they could also have been put in the "blank" uniform like civilians often wear, but putting the USAF Aux on there went a tad too far. 

[A.Member]

I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not have transpired with uniforms or anything else.

However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!

[Eclipse]

However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!

And THAT is the exact reason which is why this is Good Intentions, Rt 12, with an exit to Hell Valley.

what they were DOING is "fantastic", their leaders do not want to rock the boat by  quotig "silly regulations" that "just get in the way".

What they are forgetting is that those same "silly regulations" >PROTECT< their people and the organization.

It won't be a problem, until its a problem, and then the lawyers can have a field day with this.

Don't give NHQ credit for even readin those stories - I douobt anyone is looking at them until someone complains. 

[afgeo4]

Yeah, knowing how well-equipped the Army works ... I think the most realistic scenario is that they were issued those uniforms along with what looks like an entire TA-50 for the event, and I'm sure for the primary purpose of bringing in the chaplains as "part of the team", etc. etc.

On a personal note, I think it's excellent... they don't stand out as the red-headed step-children of the outfit, and I think they look quite professional.  But, I've also historically entrusted chaplains to be the most responsible and behaved subset of members.

<snip>

(And an aside ... they're wearing the Army Chaplain insignia too. )

While the chaplains are not wearing a CAP uniform, I think McLarty's scenario is what took place.  They appear to be wearing National Guard uniforms....and as McLarty pointed out...the cross on their uniforms is that of the U.S. Army.  The USAF Chaplain Service does not wear subdued "hard" insignias on their BDUs (which are woodland pattern --- spent several days a couple of weeks ago at a CSRSC on an active AFB and took note of what the base chaplains wore as everyday uniforms....BDUs).

Take note again... subdued officer/chaplain insignia is authorized for wear with BDU covers (for ALL services excl USMC I believe). Bright metal insignia may be worn in Garrison (on base) only. That is the regulation for Army and Air Force. It has been interpreted as wear of bright metal is for all, but field situations while subdued insignia is worn in the field. As such, what you'd see on base would be bright metal insignia and what you'd see on a BDU cover or a PASGT helmet cover in training or combat would be either subdued metal or subdued sew-on insignia for officers and chaplains.

Having said that... the uniform combination in question may have been authorized by the Wing Military Liaison officer based on request from the US Army. The Army does not want their members to treat these chaplains any differently than any Army chaplains. They would also prefer that all friendlies wear the same uniform while training for combat. Thus, uniforms were issued and name tapes were made custom, authorized specifically for this mission. Considering that this unit is either under or supports the USSOC community, there's no surprise that they may have asked for special considerations.

Combat airmen of AFSOC on occasion wear the ACUs as well (TACP and Combat Weathermen specifically). Especially when attached to Army units. The last thing you want to do is look different from those that surround you in combat. It leads to friendly fire incidents, confusion among friendly forces, and specific targeting from the enemy when they start thinking that you're either a high ranked officer, a foreign officer, a dignitary, or perhaps a special agency officer. That's why you'll find USAF ACU name/branch tapes and rank tabs offered online in limited quantities.

Knowing that ACU accessories will be authorized (and perhaps the only ones authorized) for wear with ABU, I've purchased an ACUPAT assault pack and put an Air Force blue thread ACU nametape on it. A full color US flag as well. (No branch identifiers are on it, so it's legal.)

[afgeo4]

Anyone notice how with improperly positioned LBE/backpack the "Aux" part of a chaplain's branch tape is blocked leaving him to be identified as Air Force personnel? I'm pretty sure THAT may become the reason why we don't wear insignia such as that.

[A.Member]

However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!

And THAT is the exact reason which is why this is Good Intentions, Rt 12, with an exit to Hell Valley.

what they were DOING is "fantastic", their leaders do not want to rock the boat by  quotig "silly regulations" that "just get in the way".

What they are forgetting is that those same "silly regulations" >PROTECT< their people and the organization.

It won't be a problem, until its a problem, and then the lawyers can have a field day with this.

Don't give NHQ credit for even readin those stories - I douobt anyone is looking at them until someone complains. 

Do you or anyone else here know anything more around the circumstances of this other than what was described in the article?  If not, at best it's speculation and serves little useful purpose. 

None of us here knows what did or did not transpire with the uniforms.  Until we do, let's not get too wrapped around the axle.  Instead, I'll stick with what I know - and that is: what these guys did was a good thing that helps to foster the types of relationships we need!

[Nick Critelli]

RiverAux

You've got it wrong.  Congress didn't create Title 10 USC 9446(b) to be "redundant."  They don't  work that way.  Chaplains and retired AF Personnel are the only individuals SECAF can specifically assign. The rest of the statute refers to the services of the CAP entity, meaning the Title 36 entity.  Remember the law governing CAP's use is entirely different than that which applies to the CG Aux.

[Chaplaindon]

I believe Col. Critelli to be correct in saying, "Congress didn't create Title 10 USC 9446(b) to be "redundant."  They don't  work that way.  Chaplains and retired AF Personnel are the only individuals SECAF can specifically assign."

That is the reason that CAP chaplains wear the actual USAF Chaplain insignia (Badge). 

And also why, with a very narrow-scope waiver program notwithstanding, CAP chaplains must meet the same educational requirements and ecclesiastical endorsement requirements (as actual/full MILITARY chaplains) as active duty chaplains.

On the other hand, CAP pilots, for example, don't have to match training and experience with the USAF and they aren't considered military pilots. They also don't wear USAF pilot wings either.

[LtCol White]

Lets not forget, NHQ posted the pics with the article.

Many people are guessing "it was approved/it wasnt approved" Who knows? Only those involved. Lets not run off making any assumptions. Yes, the photos raise eyebrows, but leave it to NHQ to address if it is a prob.

All the random babble of "yes it is, no it isn't, yes the should, no they shouldn't" doesn't accomplish ANYTHING productive.

[RiverAux]

Sorry, as discussed in any one of the many augmentation threads, CAP members can be used in ANY noncombat mission of the AF as an Air Force assigned mission.

§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(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.

The intent of the text in bold is no different than the Chaplain wording.

[LtCol White]

Sorry, as discussed in any one of the many augmentation threads, CAP members can be used in ANY noncombat mission of the AF as an Air Force assigned mission.

§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(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.

The intent of the text in bold is no different than the Chaplain wording.

I'm sure it has been done in the past but I remember this practice during the first Gulf War in 1991. I was with GA Wing at the time and Chaplains and legal officers were asked to help out as well as cadet color guards.

[Chaplaindon]

Sorry RiverAux,

It just isn't the same.

The wording is distinctly different --and thus NOT redundant-- §9442 (b)1 states, "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."

§9446 states DISTINCTLY, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

They may appear similar but they are different. One noteworthy deletion/omission is the phrase "... noncombat programs and missions ..." CAPR 265-1 (1)b adds CAP NHQ wording mentioning "... domestic, non-combat ministry ..."

The CAP chaplaincy is different. Chaplains are different. Their uniforms are different, etc.

That, having been said, doesn't NECESSARILY excuse the two chaplains in the article from the rules uniform wear (CAPM 39-1). On the other hand, as Col. White has suggested, let's refrain from leaping to conclusions based on two photos and a short narrative.

Besides, now that it's over what can/should you do about it anyway ... CAPF 2b a couple of well-meaning clergymen who volunteered their time (without remuneration) to minister to our service members? I think not.

[lordmonar]

I am not really blaming the Chaplains for anything.  I thing the are doing good work.  Since I don't know the specifics of how those uniforms came about I will not make any judgment about their though process.

BUT NHQ is a different matter.

NHQ should have nixed those pictures because they did not confom to CAP uniform regulations and they should send a nasty gram down the chain to deal with these two guys and a genaral message out to all unit commanders stressing complaince with CAP regulations.

It is simple as that.

If this simple action was done frequently and consistantly we would not have nearly as many problems with uniform standardisation.

[DNall]

Non concur.  Strenuously.

Military chaplains wear all the gear, sans arms, when serving in battlespace/gamespace, depending on whether it's real world or just an exercise.

For example, for our ORI "sky pilots" wore full harness and MOPP gear to do their jobs.  Same thing in-country.

CAP Chaplains don't serve in combat, period.  Likewise, CAP Chaplains should not be in the gamespace as players.  If they're supporting the exercise participants outside of gamespace, BDU's should be fine.

When these pictures get detached from the story, and they will, they will wander around the net leaving a trail of questions and mistaken ideas.  there's just no reason for it.

Non-combat missions, as defined by AF, does involve everything short of direct action. That explictly include conus combat support, and direct participant role in the gamespace. As an example I'd cite the airspace penetrator simluations, and ground radar intercept drills we've been doing for some years now.

It's not the most responsible work by a PAO, I'd grant that, but it's not that big a deal if they wanted them in the "gamespace" simulating the role of a chaplain they'll be meeting up with in-country, or perhaps more likely is advising & counseling on how to interact with other cultures & religions.