New CAP Chaplain uniform?

[DNall]

Little more complicated then that, but sure...

He's right that it kind of says that chaplains can be called to duty where no other CAP member can. However, there is no legal basis for that. The individual chaplain may put their endorsement by their denomenation at risk if they don't respond, but they are neither commissioned nor contracted to any service obligation that would allow the govt to force them to duty if they don't want to go.

If the chaplains are not in any authorized CAP uniform, and one of them were to be hurt, does CAP pay, or does the Army?

Good point, answer is neither. They are working for AF when supporting the Army, and as such are required under AF rules to be in correct authorized uniform or forefiet coverage.

[RiverAux]

In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 

[FARRIER]

In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 

Give it a break!

[Major Lord]

Man, when even the Chaplains piss on the rules, we are going to hell in a handbasket,! (so to speak... ) I guess we really don't care what the Air Force might say about our constant cross-dressing (pun intended)

Capt. Lord

[Pumbaa]

Sounds like when Clinton wanted to have the word 'It' defined.

Talk about beating a dead horse.. This is dragging the dead horse to water and then beating it because you couldn't lead it to drink!

And you wonder why missons are getting fewer and attrition is higher?

Majoring on the minors, talk about a lack of constructive.

sigh....

[RiverAux]

In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 

Give it a break!

Thanks for the advice. 

[A.Member]

Sounds like when Clinton wanted to have the word 'It' defined.

Talk about beating a dead horse.. This is dragging the dead horse to water and then beating it because you couldn't lead it to drink!

And you wonder why missons are getting fewer and attrition is higher?

Majoring on the minors, talk about a lack of constructive.

sigh....

Actually, it was the word "is". 

Just thought I'd hop in with some irrelevant point as well! 

[afgeo4]

Little more complicated then that, but sure...

He's right that it kind of says that chaplains can be called to duty where no other CAP member can. However, there is no legal basis for that. The individual chaplain may put their endorsement by their denomenation at risk if they don't respond, but they are neither commissioned nor contracted to any service obligation that would allow the govt to force them to duty if they don't want to go.

If the chaplains are not in any authorized CAP uniform, and one of them were to be hurt, does CAP pay, or does the Army?

Good point, answer is neither. They are working for AF when supporting the Army, and as such are required under AF rules to be in correct authorized uniform or forefiet coverage.

Define "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.

[RiverAux]

Define "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.

Last I heard no one on this board has any first hand knowledge of what, if anything, was authorized by anybody.  Maybe they got some special exception from NHQ...maybe they cowboy'ed up the uniform on their own.  All we do know is that they were not wearing a uniform authorized by CAP regulations.

[afgeo4]

Man, when even the Chaplains piss on the rules, we are going to hell in a handbasket,! (so to speak... ) I guess we really don't care what the Air Force might say about our constant cross-dressing (pun intended)

Capt. Lord

Cross dressing?  Would TACP airmen be cross dressing when wearing ACUs on missions too?

Remember, there are TWO reasons why the military wears uniforms. First is so that everyone looks the same. Second is the utility of the uniform and what it brings to the battle as a combat tool as in its durability, camouflage, ease of care, safety, etc. When fighting or training to fight with the Army the best thing to do is to wear the Army uniform. When doing it with the Navy, it makes sense to dress like a sailor. That's how all the branches operate. It's logical and makes sense to all parties involved.

[afgeo4]

Define "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.

Last I heard no one on this board has any first hand knowledge of what, if anything, was authorized by anybody.  Maybe they got some special exception from NHQ...maybe they cowboy'ed up the uniform on their own.  All we do know is that they were not wearing a uniform authorized by CAP regulations.

I submit that neither the chaplains nor the CAP-USAF personnel who authorized the mission in the first place, nor the Army personnel are stupid and with that stipulation I'd have to assume that they received permission to wear such a uniform during such an activity. I would further stipulate that these men made sure they had permission for this uniform before submitting the article with photos to NHQ. Perhaps not everyone is stipulating this?

They're Majors and Colonels and I'm a Captain. They're probably almost twice my age. They're fully trained to be military chaplains and I'm... definitely not. I think I'd have to give them the benefit of doubt on this one.

[RiverAux]

I would further stipulate that these men made sure they had permission for this uniform before submitting the article with photos to NHQ. Perhaps not everyone is stipulating this?

The evidence wouldn't support this. The fact that NHQ took it off their web site almost immediately after the issue was brought up here says to me that something wasn't right.  I don't know who did what wrong, but if everything was kosher, the article would still be there.  I know this way of looking at things doesn't prove anything, but it certainly makes me think somebody messed up. 

Unfortunately, NHQ public affairs has not been very attentive lately, but have acted quickly when CAP-TALK has brought up problems with items they post.