Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ?

[DrJbdm]

  Here's a hot topic for discussion. Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ while serving on Air Force Assigned missions or U.S. Air Force Aux missions?

  It might require a small change in the UCMJ laws to allow this. Here's how the article 2 of the UCMJ reads. I listed the change it might require in italics. that line subsection 8 (a) is not currently in the UCMJ, I wrote that segment to show the language it might require to make the UCMJ applicable to us.  However there is a small part that's already in the UCMJ that reads: and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. that might already apply to us, Of course I'm not an attorney so I wouldn't know if there was case law that already interpreted that line.

  It's interesting food for thought, I think a change like this might serve to make us a more professional organisations when it comes to standards. IF our members where subject to the UCMJ while serving on AF missions. What do you'll think?


Article 2 UCMJ:

ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:


(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (emphasis mine)

  (a) Officers of the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Auxiliary while serving on U.S. Air Force assigned missions or on missions deemed as U.S. Air Force Auxiliary missions as defined by Congress. (italics mine)

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (IMPORTANT NOTE: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007, CONGRESS CHANGED THIS PROVISION TO READ: "In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."

Disabled smileys - MIKE

[RiverAux]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

[Pylon]

  Here's a hot topic for discussion. Should CAP Officers be subject to the UCMJ while serving on Air Force Assigned missions or U.S. Air Force Aux missions?

I don't understand what the issues we've been having or could potentially have that we're trying to prevent by doing this.  Could you perhaps elaborate on why you think this would benefit CAP?

The UCMJ can be terribly restricting.  Why subject us to an additional set (a substantial set) of rules if we don't need to?

[Tubacap]

Having never served in the military, what are some restrictions that it would place on us that are not already in place by our own regulations?

If it were to happen, who would regulate it?

[lordmonar]

Could it be made to work?  Maybe.  But what benifit does it have when you are only on an AFAM for a couple of hours or maybe a day or two?

If the UCMJ was in force at the start of the AFAM and did not end until the AFAM was officaly closed....everyone would be under said authority.  That means no one can go home because you have to go to work, take care of the kids, walk the dog or other personal buisness.

Secondly.....I am a CAP Capt.....and a USAF MSgt.....what happens to me when I order a CAP 2nd Lt who is also a USAF 2nd Lt around?

If we are subject to the UCMJ then any officer can boss us around.

If we violate the UCMJ and are taken into custody....who is going to try us?  Who is going to compensate us?

No....go....this sounds like a solution looking for a problem.  A solution that would create many more problems in the long run.

[bosshawk]

As far as I am concerned, this is a moot subject.  I am already covered by the UCMJ and have been for just under 50 years.

I have an opinion about putting CAP under the UCMJ:  NO     NO     NO.

It would require an act of Congress: what a thought??

It is somewhat akin to an old saying that a lot of you are too young to have ever heard: it is like making a silk purse out of a sows ear.  To put it simply, there are too many "Officers" in CAP who have no idea what being a member of the armed forces is all about and CAP has no capability to teach them in any meaningful way.

I could go on and on, but I won't.  Just an idea whose time has not come and likely will never come.

[Eclipse]

No.

[Monty]

No.

Oh I don't know, Bob.  What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right?

Article 89 make you nervous?  Article 117? 

[MIKE]

I would be in favor of something similar to the RAFVR/T system.  I read something on ACC about some VR/T officers who were being court marshaled for some financial stuff.

[wingnut]

Oh Yes

Sign me up for  the UCMJ CAP, now I can be really screwed no pay, buy my own uniforms, safety equipment, pay for hotel rooms when on a mission, oh yes pay for fuel and oil 9sometimes over ( $1,000) and wait for 2 months to be reimbursed.

Yes sign me up for that CAP too, I could then get an article 15 for being fat and they will give me a month without pay. . . , or hard labor (need to paint the CAP trailer).   

Sorry no pay and benefits, NO CAP UCMJ

[SarDragon]

In a word, NO.

BTDT, no t-shirt.

Read the sig.

[DrJbdm]

The reason I even bring this up is that it seems that most SDFs, who are arguably less military then CAP fall under their State UCMJ. case in point the Texas State Guard (SDF) falls under the TCMJ (Texas Code of Military Justice) to what extent they are accountable to it I don't know. But they are a volunteer organization much the same as CAP is but with almost no budget.

 My point is that PERHAPS having us fall under the UCMJ to some extent while performing AFAMs might bring some very needed credibility to us from the AF. I think it would be problamatic is some areas but CAP needs something that ties us in closer to the AF, and perhaps having limited jurisdiction under the UCMJ might help add that extra credibility we need. How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs. As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders. Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

[Al Sayre]

When I start getting paid for my CAP service, then I might consider it, but having BTDT, I would say absolutely no way.  There are too many things in the UCMJ that could be used by a vindictive member to bring charges against a "political" rival  such as "Prejudicial to good order and discipline" for someone who argues with an IC or a higher ranking officer, Unauthorized absence or "missing movment" for those who miss a meeting or a flight during an AFAM.  We have more than enough pettiness in this organization without adding the force of law to it.  Right now, whenever you have had enough BS, you can say "Screw it, I quit, I'm going home"  try that under UCMJ on a mission and you could wind up making little rocks from big ones at Leavenworth.  Commanders have a lot of power for non-judicial punishment under UCMJ, and then you'd also need an entire JAG corps for anything that doesn't fall under NJP (Courts-martial).  This is a giant can of worms that is better left unopened.

[ZigZag911]

This seems like an idea that would lead to a lot of dissension in the ranks, and would further clog an already somewhat overtaxed administrative system.

I'd have to say 'no'.

[O-Rex]

No, no, and um. . . oh yeah: no!

Allowing the head of a household the right to spank you doesn't necessarily entitle you to a place at the family dinner table.

Looking for credibility? train, learn, internalize, then repeat the process.

Being subject to the UCMJ, even for an instant, means surrendering your civil rights (that's why they call us civilians!) 

Doing so will NOT give us any more USAFAUX mojo than we alreay have (or don't have.)

[arajca]

The reason I even bring this up is that it seems that most SDFs, who are arguably less military then CAP fall under their State UCMJ. case in point the Texas State Guard (SDF) falls under the TCMJ (Texas Code of Military Justice) to what extent they are accountable to it I don't know. But they are a volunteer organization much the same as CAP is but with almost no budget.

The reason some - or most - sdf's fall under their state version of the UCMJ is because the enacting legislation specifies the sdf will follow the state UCMJ. That doesn't apply to CAP - nor should it.

My point is that PERHAPS having us fall under the UCMJ to some extent while performing AFAMs might bring some very needed credibility to us from the AF. I think it would be problamatic is some areas but CAP needs something that ties us in closer to the AF, and perhaps having limited jurisdiction under the UCMJ might help add that extra credibility we need. How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs. As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders. Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

From what I have heard - from folks in the emergency management and le fields - is way back when, CAP members  came in with massive egos (reportedly, larger than fighter pilot egos) and did not want to work with the authorities because of their 'federal' status. When say way back when, I mean just that - one emergency manager I know wasn't even born when the events that led to the banishment happened, but he still followed it.

CAP falls under the same civilian laws that the rest of the US does. There are far too many potential abuses possible under UCMJ for a pure volunteer force with no (for the vast majority of the members) military knowledge to deal with. There are many individuals who would love to have the tools available under UCMJ, but for the entirely wrong reasons. Those who have experience with the UCMJ (I am among them, although for not as long as most) understand the problems caused by putting CAP under UCMJ restrictions is a VERY BAD IDEA.

[flyerthom]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.


That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

[PhotogPilot]

Oh Yes

Sign me up for  the UCMJ CAP, now I can be really screwed no pay, buy my own uniforms, safety equipment, pay for hotel rooms when on a mission, oh yes pay for fuel and oil 9sometimes over ( $1,000) and wait for 2 months to be reimbursed.

Yes sign me up for that CAP too, I could then get an article 15 for being fat and they will give me a month without pay. . . , or hard labor (need to paint the CAP trailer).   

Sorry no pay and benefits, NO CAP UCMJ

Someone needs to paint the orange triangles on top of CAP vehicles!

[RiverAux]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

Job protections are an entirely different matter.  Heck, some SDFs are under their state UCMJs and don't get any job protection at all.  Separate issues. 

[Pylon]

And why exactly would this be necessary?  What benefit would it add to our operations?

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think. Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.
Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes. We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

Job protections are an entirely different matter.  Heck, some SDFs are under their state UCMJs and don't get any job protection at all.  Separate issues. 

Agreed.  Employment matters for CAP missions is a matter than can be dealt with entirely separately, without putting CAP under the entire UCMJ.  Both would require legislative action, so why add all the extra burden, hassle, problems, and potential abuse of the UCMJ on CAP members for a smaller benefit which could be proposed separately?

I still haven't seen any positive reason that's convinced me it would be a good idea to even explore proposing this.   

[RiverAux]

In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of situations in which the UCMJ would be helpful would be OUTSIDE of AFAMs.  The missions are almost always the most professionally conducted activity that we do in CAP.  However, where the UCMJ could come in handy would be in enforcing discipline in regards to the administration of CAP itself. 

Say, Squadron Commander you better get that report to me by tomorrow, OR ELSE!

However, even then the benefits would be so minor that the effort that would have to be expended to make it happen in the first place would be all out of proportion to the results. 

[arajca]

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think.

More than you think. When I first joined the fire department (all volunteer) ALL fire/rescue/EMS was volunteer. There were several employers (major resorts) who established a policy of "if you leave work to run a call, you don't have a job afterward." Sound like a volunteer friendly employer? Again, ALL fire/rescue/EMS was ALL volunteer. They also expected you to go off the clock to provide your fire/rescue/EMS services to the resort if the resort needed them. (Yea, right.)

Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.

Which takes them out of the volunteer category that CAP is in and puts them into Paid-On-Call like some volunteer fire dept's. Also, I don't recall DMAT/USAR/DMORT/etc being under UCMJ. They usually fall under FEMA, which doe not fall under UCMJ.

Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes.

True

We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina

Not as much as you might think, outside of the affected areas.

Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

It's not a luxury, but it is something we cannot afford.

[sardak]

Employment - job protection has nothing to do with the UCMJ.  Re-employment protection for members of the uniformed services falls under the

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)

Title 38, United States Code CHAPTER 43--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
which is the responsibility of the US Department of Labor.

The term 'uniformed services' means the Armed Forces, the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard when engaged in active duty for training, inactive duty training, or full-time National Guard duty, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and any other category of persons designated by the President in time of war or emergency.

Intermittent employees of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) are also considered to be performing "service in the uniformed services" and protected by USERRA when activated to provide assistance in a public health emergency, to be present when there is a risk of a public health emergency, or when participating in authorized training. See 20 CFR Part 1002.5(0).

So if CAP is interested in job protection (good idea) it needs to talk with the DOL, not DOD.

Mike

[lordmonar]

The reason I even bring this up is that it seems that most SDFs, who are arguably less military then CAP fall under their State UCMJ. case in point the Texas State Guard (SDF) falls under the TCMJ (Texas Code of Military Justice) to what extent they are accountable to it I don't know. But they are a volunteer organization much the same as CAP is but with almost no budget.

 My point is that PERHAPS having us fall under the UCMJ to some extent while performing AFAMs might bring some very needed credibility to us from the AF. I think it would be problamatic is some areas but CAP needs something that ties us in closer to the AF, and perhaps having limited jurisdiction under the UCMJ might help add that extra credibility we need. How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs. As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders. Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

The difference is that the SDF guys are ALWAYS under the state UCMJ.  Meaning if they do not respond to the call...the state troopers can come out and touch them.

Being under the UCMJ only when you are on an AFAM does not make sense.  When does it apply?  When you sign into the mission base?  The UCMJ is not something you can turn off and on anytime you want to.

Article 2...already allows the military to pull us under the UCMJ in times of war...but if that ever happened there would be a full time draft going on a the same time.  But to turn it on and off during AFAMs would not work.  You would have to issue written orders to each and every member who was participating BEFORE they arrived and process "discharge" paperwork as they left to insure that everyone know exactly when the UCMJ applies and is turned off.

[sardak]

How much more professional does it make us look to people if they knew we fell under the UCMJ even to a degree while performing AFAMs.

None.  CAP's primary role, even on AFAMs, is interfacing with civilians who don't know or care about the UCMJ.  The UCMJ has nothing to do with professionalism.  Using the UCMJ in the belief that it would force CAP to become "professional" is wrong.

As it is now, we have no legal obligation to perform to a set standard. That's part of our problem. We are a volunteer organization that wants to ACT like a bunch of volunteers and not true emergency services responders.

So what does that say about all the other volunteer emergency services organizations that have far fewer regs than CAP, and in no way would ever fall under the UCMJ?

If CAP is only acting and isn't professional, as is implied, that is a problem of leadership and management.  Putting CAP under the UCMJ would not solve that problem, but in fact would quite possibly make it worse, because the poor managers and leaders would have one more, powerful, tool to misuse (the beatings will continue until morale improves).  Having been on both sides of the aisle in disciplinary and 2b proceedings involving CAP members, the thought of some people yielding the UCMJ is scary.   This is an organization of civilian volunteers.

Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.

I'm not sure how CAP ground teams could be made illegal, but not using them or recognizing them in some areas, and even threatening to have them arrested, are indeed real issues.  I've been in all these situations in the CAP and non-CAP roles.  The root causes of these issues go well beyond this thread, into the very structure of the organization.  The proposed solution is not the answer.

Mike

[flyerthom]

That being said (Union Steward hat off) how many employers would want to deal with the bad press of firing a volunteer? Few if any I would think.

More than you think. When I first joined the fire department (all volunteer) ALL fire/rescue/EMS was volunteer. There were several employers (major resorts) who established a policy of "if you leave work to run a call, you don't have a job afterward." Sound like a volunteer friendly employer? Again, ALL fire/rescue/EMS was ALL volunteer. They also expected you to go off the clock to provide your fire/rescue/EMS services to the resort if the resort needed them. (Yea, right.)

Also groups like DMAT who are under the code pay people during deployments.

Which takes them out of the volunteer category that CAP is in and puts them into Paid-On-Call like some volunteer fire dept's. Also, I don't recall DMAT/USAR/DMORT/etc being under UCMJ. They usually fall under FEMA, which doe not fall under UCMJ.

Organizational respect is earned, not granted by legal codes.

True

We earned a bunch with Columbia and Katrina

Not as much as you might think, outside of the affected areas.

Being under the Uniform code is a luxury. It may be one we can't afford.

It's not a luxury, but it is something we cannot afford.

I was recruited by the local DMAT team. They are under Public Health and are covered by the same job protections as the Guard etc. I filled out an ap but never filed it.

[SAR-EMT1]

Thats why some states do not recognize CAP ground teams or from what I have heard have even made them illegal.




I'm not sure how CAP ground teams could be made illegal, but not using them or recognizing them in some areas, and even threatening to have them arrested, are indeed real issues.  I've been in all these situations in the CAP and non-CAP roles. 

Mike






I would SERIOUSLY be interested to hear about this. A CAP GT being arrested? AFRCC would have the PD involved at Leavenworth making gravel.

[arajca]

I'm not sure how CAP ground teams could be made illegal, but not using them or recognizing them in some areas, and even threatening to have them arrested, are indeed real issues.  I've been in all these situations in the CAP and non-CAP roles. 

Mike

I would SERIOUSLY be interested to hear about this. A CAP GT being arrested? AFRCC would have the PD involved at Leavenworth making gravel.

No, they wouldn't. CAP ground teams have no rights or privileges beyond that of ordinary citizens - unless otherwise specified in state law. Trespassing is still a crime. The fact that you are on a mission is irrelevant. Also, if the local law enforcement folks say go away, you go away. Simple. If you do not, you can be arrested. In some states, CAP is recognized as an emergency agency, while in others it is not.

[lordmonar]

The one major reason is for employment. Groups like DMAT are covered like this and therefore employers must hold their jobs for them and release them for duty. CAP is not covered therefore the employer is not required to release you for duty and hold your job.  Many would simply because of the bad PR if CAP volunteers  weren't released for something like Katrina. But they are not so required. If we were under the Uniform Code we would acquire those protections.

Even those under the UCMJ do not really get very good protection.  The federal government has not been very......vigorous....in enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect the Guard and Reserves....in fact there are instances where the federal government (including the DoD!) have violated the law!

It would be easier and better to pass specific legislation to get CAP volunteer (and other volunteer ES organizations) job protection.

The UCMJ is not the way to go.  It does not turn on and off very well.  If it only works when you are assigned to and AF Mission....and you only get assigned to those missions when you volunteer for them....it is pretty hard to say we need this protection because of the UCMJ.  The UCMJ (or let's call it the CAPCMJ) would have to be in force 24/7.  It would take away all of your Constitutional Rights!

Thats right....each and every solder, airman, sailor and marine has not Constitutional rights under the UCMJ.

Many of our rights are mirrored in the the UCMJ but not all of them.  Freedom of Speech, movement, due process, self incrimination, sexual preferences, assembly, association, the are all gone.

Do you really want to give some of our squadron commanders UCMJ authority?  Look how well we do with 2b actions.

[Major_Chuck]

No.  Nix.  Nein. 

CAP Officers can be held accountable under established civilian laws depending upon what ever the case may be.

UCMJ probably has more safeguard protections built into in then civil laws but doesn't apply to us volunteers.

As a Guardsman I am held to UCMJ standards already.  No arguement there.  As un unpaid civilian volunteer (CAP) -- If CAP floats me a paycheck and some benefits then we may discuss a change.   Not until then.

[sardak]

I'm not sure how CAP ground teams could be made illegal, but not using them or recognizing them in some areas, and even threatening to have them arrested, are indeed real issues.  I've been in all these situations in the CAP and non-CAP roles. 

Mike

I would SERIOUSLY be interested to hear about this. A CAP GT being arrested? AFRCC would have the PD involved at Leavenworth making gravel.

No, they wouldn't. CAP ground teams have no rights or privileges beyond that of ordinary citizens - unless otherwise specified in state law. Trespassing is still a crime. The fact that you are on a mission is irrelevant. Also, if the local law enforcement folks say go away, you go away. Simple. If you do not, you can be arrested. In some states, CAP is recognized as an emergency agency, while in others it is not.

Taking Andrew's correct comments one step higher, 

In the normal state of affairs in the US, there is nothing at the federal level that would allow the  AFRCC or USAF to even try to "send a local LEO to Leavenworth" for arresting or threatening to arrest a CAP GT.

The belief that CAP has some special authority while on missions is not uncommon within CAP and is not unique to ground teams.  There are ICs, DO/DOSs and commanders who believe this, and as a result, they put CAP forces in situations  that lead to problems.  Ground/UDF teams are most often involved because they are the CAP representatives who most frequently come face-to-face with other emergency services agencies and the public.

In the cases to which I referred (multiple situations in two large wings), the CAP GT in some manner failed to heed the order of a LEO.  Bad thing to do.  Even when the GT was in the right, the GTL didn't handle the situation properly.  Instead of doing as told, or backing off and notifying the IC, the GTL either ignored the LEO or got in his/her face.  This happened because of the personality of the GTL or because the GTL believed in the "special authority" or because of some combination of the two.

Mike

[ZigZag911]

The belief that CAP has some special authority while on missions is not uncommon within CAP and is not unique to ground teams.  There are ICs, DO/DOSs and commanders who believe this, and as a result, they put CAP forces in situations  that lead to problems.  Ground/UDF teams are most often involved because they are the CAP representatives who most frequently come face-to-face with other emergency services agencies and the public.

You are absolutely correct....further, it is a smart practice for an IC to give local LE a 'heads up' when sending a GT into their jurisdiction....especially if the mission is an ELT hunt in the dead of night.....forewarning the cops or sherriff that a group of strangers  wearing BDUs and carrying techno-gizmos will be meandering about their turf is always a good idea.

[ddelaney103]

As a Guardsman I am held to UCMJ standards already.  No arguement there.  As un unpaid civilian volunteer (CAP) -- If CAP floats me a paycheck and some benefits then we may discuss a change.   Not until then.

Well, kinda.  To be more correct, you are held to UCMJ while on Federal status.  While a state activated militiaman you would be subject to whatever state military code your state has.  Not on orders?  Not held to UCMJ.

[DNall]

Let me try to pick up some issues that were mentioned...

CAP is bound to a degree. That's established in international law, from which the UCMJ draws those provisions. It is confusing to what degree & in what circumstances it exists, and I don't don't know the answers either. I appreciate the issue, but I'm also in the camp of not seeing what is gained by clearing this up with policy letters or explicit changes in the law. It may be there's some good points, but I'm not seeing it yet.

I am a CAP Capt.....and a USAF MSgt.....what happens to me when I order a CAP 2nd Lt who is also a USAF 2nd Lt around?

Nothing. UCMJ authority exists in unit command positions above a certain echelon & has nothing to do with grade. Civilians can command such units (as directors) even including MAJCOMs, but in that case the UCMJ authority reverts to the next echelon. The only time the UCMJ addresses grade is with regard to obeying the lawful orders of those appointed over you. As a mil NCO you know & have stated before how there are appropriate circumstances where you can & should ignore a Col outside your command in favor of a Capt from your unit.

As CAP members (on orders) we are considered cvilian emplyees of the AF, and in that capacity during those circumstances can be appointed above or below any other mil or civilian employee (think ICS) the govt should determine. The ability to excercise UCMJ authority reverts to either CAP-USAF or A3/SHA (I don't know which). There are no circumstances under which a civilian employee (or CAP member) can bring charges against each other or others. NOTE: Congressionally confirmed civilians are a different story.

[SAR-EMT1]

Ok.. taking this a bit farther... have there EVER been any situations where a CAP group was put under the direct command of RealMilitary either in the field or elsewhere?
Or vice versa? Military under command of a CAP IC or somesuch?
- For the sake of brevity I'll specify my questions to the POST WWII period.

[lordmonar]

Ok.. taking this a bit farther... have there EVER been any situations where a CAP group was put under the direct command of RealMilitary either in the field or elsewhere?
Or vice versa? Military under command of a CAP IC or somesuch?
- For the sake of brevity I'll specify my questions to the POST WWII period.

Well back in the day....the CAP National Command was a serving active duty officer and our chain of command was directly under USAF-CAP.  I don't know when this changed...problably in the 1950's when the UCMJ was adopted.

[RogueLeader]

Ok.. taking this a bit farther... have there EVER been any situations where a CAP group was put under the direct command of RealMilitary either in the field or elsewhere?
Or vice versa? Military under command of a CAP IC or somesuch?
- For the sake of brevity I'll specify my questions to the POST WWII period.

Well back in the day....the CAP National Command was a serving active duty officer and our chain of command was directly under USAF-CAP.  I don't know when this changed...problably in the 1950's when the UCMJ was adopted.

Too bad we can't have an Active Duty AFD MG NC or even a Retired MG

[DNall]

Too bad we can't have an Active Duty AFD MG NC or even a Retired MG

No kidding... it was a cost savings thing.

Well back in the day....the CAP National Command was a serving active duty officer and our chain of command was directly under USAF-CAP.  I don't know when this changed...problably in the 1950's when the UCMJ was adopted.

Actually it was a lot later then that. Again, cost savings, not UCMJ. There are some newer rules that prevent it though. Ethics rules mainly. CAP is treated as a contractor in the relationship rather than a civilian agency reporting to the AF, as it should be.


CAP is regularly under AF orders. That's all AFAMs. AFRCC as an example... the CAP-IC works for a SAR Controller (who is probably a SrA working under a duty officer Capt). Any mission directed by the AF, once you sign in you are legally a uniformed combatant under military orders. Obviously the military is also bound by some restrictions on how we can be legally used, but you are at that point, debatablly at least, bound to some degree by UCMJ. It's the same debate about contractors in a combat zone under the command of a military unit, and trust me when I say there is no motivation to clear up the rules on that one. If you want more direct command situations... it's jus tlike joint ICS. We've been in joint missions w/ AF & CG where we've been under their command on a field level. I've been on those missions & taken orders from those appointed over me.

[Chaplaindon]

Dennis,

Although you are correct on most of what you've just written, I question this statement regarding member status on AFAMs, "once you sign in you are legally a uniformed combatant under military orders."

I do not believe that CAP members, under orders or not, are ever considered "combatants." I know that during WWII CAP personnel were issued Geneva Convention approved ID cards listing them as "Belligerents" to prevent any captured from being shot as spies.

I would like to see the citation from the USC to support that assertion.

[DNall]

The geneva conventions state any individual regardless of status who is acting on orders from a military force or willfully accompanying them in the field is considered a combatant and can be legally targeted. That is particularly if they possess the capability to relay information potentially harmful to allied forces. CAP is further covered as a "paramilitary or irregular" force.

The statement in title 10 that orders the SAF to use CAP for non-combat missions of the AF is there to legally restrict the SAF from putting CAP in combat jobs, not that it would ever happen but there needed to be a legal basis restricting it. You'll find the exact same interpretation applies to CGAux, and they are issued Geneva convention cards because they are potentially at sea where they could potentially meet foreign forces. CAP doesn't get such cards because they would only apply under Aux status & being inland we don't need them. You can debate if border flying creates a potential need or not, that would be up to AF.

You can ask Kach about this stuff, he's much more knowledgable than I am.

[Chaplaindon]

I'll take your word for it. Although I wonder how many cadet parents are aware that their adolescent, " ... in the field is considered a combatant and can be legally targeted" [by a foreign power]?

Maybe they need special parental permission slips for war --just in case.

As a former CGAux member (and aviator), I can say that I never got my GC card ... maybe Air Station Houston didn't issue them or else, maybe I was expendable ...

[RiverAux]

"in the field"..... I'm not sure running down to the airport at midnight puts me in the field with the armed forces of the US....not even enough to through a "debatedly" into the mix. 

[Al Sayre]

I think Chaplains and Health Services types fall under a completely different category...

[RiverAux]

By the way, the CG Aux doesn't get a separate Geneva Convention card --- its just a little box on the back of our regular id card.  I very sincerely doubt that 1% of Auxies ever actually serve underway on a CG vessel as part of the crew (joyride "morale" cruises wouldn't count). 

[DNall]

I'm not in the CGAux, but I believe the current cards have a statement on the back about geneva convention status. It doesn't take much to fulfill the requirement.

"in the field"..... I'm not sure running down to the airport at midnight puts me in the field with the armed forces of the US....not even enough to through a "debatedly" into the mix. 

Maybe I puncuated that badly, but "acting on order from" meets the requirement regardless of where & how you do it. If at some point AF authorized augmentation of the anti-cyber-terrorism efforts of 8AF, then sitting at your computer doing AF authorized web surfing meets the criteria.

I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, cause it isn't that big a deal, but you have to realize that ANYTHING that makes any portion of the military or govt more capable to conduct military action or security is a very valid target. The very reason we do SaR is so military resources can be preserved for military functions, and we sure as hell are doing HLS right now & aiding in military training (even if it is just as radar targets or low-level route surveys).

I think Chaplains and Health Services types fall under a completely different category...

Yes that would be the case, but it's dicey the way we do it, cause a chaplain could also be an MP on an HLS mission. If the need arises to correct the situation then I'm sure that'll be addressed.

[Major_Chuck]

As a Guardsman I am held to UCMJ standards already.  No arguement there.  As un unpaid civilian volunteer (CAP) -- If CAP floats me a paycheck and some benefits then we may discuss a change.   Not until then.

Well, kinda.  To be more correct, you are held to UCMJ while on Federal status.  While a state activated militiaman you would be subject to whatever state military code your state has.  Not on orders?  Not held to UCMJ.

True, but with a deployment to the sandbox looming closer in my future next year  Federal status is not that far off.  Plus, I don't want to find out regardless.  I'll opt not to stray to the wrong side of the law.

[lordmonar]

once you sign in you are legally a uniformed combatant under military orders.

There is a big difference between being a legal combatant and be subject to the UCMJ....and for the record you are a legal combatant even befor you sign it.  You are a legal target right now infact just by being a member.

[lordmonar]

"in the field"..... I'm not sure running down to the airport at midnight puts me in the field with the armed forces of the US....not even enough to through a "debatedly" into the mix. 

We are a force multiplier for the USAf.  We do "non-combant" jobs but we are still combatants, just like the cooks and admin specialists on base.  Under international law to be considered a combantat you must have:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So we have command stucture, uniforms and aircraft markings, arms (our air planes are considered weapon systems as is our communications net) and finally we conduct our operations ian accordance with U.S. laws which conform to the laws and customs of war.

Bing!  Legal combatants!

[DNall]

once you sign in you are legally a uniformed combatant under military orders.

There is a big difference between being a legal combatant and be subject to the UCMJ....and for the record you are a legal combatant even befor you sign it.  You are a legal target right now infact just by being a member.

Valid or legal? With the 2000 changes to our Aux status I'm not entirely sure one way or the other.

We are a force multiplier for the USAf.  We do "non-combant" jobs but we are still combatants, just like the cooks and admin specialists on base.  Under international law to be considered a combantat you must have:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So we have command stucture, uniforms and aircraft markings, arms (our air planes are considered weapon systems as is our communications net) and finally we conduct our operations ian accordance with U.S. laws which conform to the laws and customs of war.

Bing!  Legal combatants!

I think we actually qualify as paramilitary/irregular forces, but the above (which defines military combatants versus something like civilian LE) is a good argument that in order for the US to comply with the geneva conventions CAP should also (in at least some cases) be bound by UCMJ.

It's really not that big a deal, really. Can you tink of anything in UCMJ you wouldn't want CAP members held to? I mean I wouldn't want to weigh down the military justice system, and I don't think anyone would ever be charged except in the most extreme cases, but it all seems like very reasonable standards to me.

[lordmonar]

We are a force multiplier for the USAF.  We do "non-combatant" jobs but we are still combatants, just like the cooks and admin specialists on base.  Under international law to be considered a combatant you must have:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So we have command structure, uniforms and aircraft markings, arms (our air planes are considered weapon systems as is our communications net) and finally we conduct our operations in accordance with U.S. laws which conform to the laws and customs of war.

Bing!  Legal combatants!

I think we actually qualify as paramilitary/irregular forces, but the above (which defines military combatants versus something like civilian LE) is a good argument that in order for the US to comply with the Geneva conventions CAP should also (in at least some cases) be bound by UCMJ.

The GC does not make a differentiation between paramilitary/irregular forces and "military combatants".  The GC has three catagories....Non Combatants, legal combatants and illegal combatants.  Five "civilians" who tie on an armband and act in accordance with the laws of armed conflict are considered legal combatants and are afforded POW status if captured.   Local LE are also considered to be legal combatants.   

It's really not that big a deal, really. Can you tink of anything in UCMJ you wouldn't want CAP members held to? I mean I wouldn't want to weigh down the military justice system, and I don't think anyone would ever be charged except in the most extreme cases, but it all seems like very reasonable standards to me.

Okay here are immediate problems with the UCMJ and applying it to CAP.

1.  Fraternization.  How many husband/wife....parent/child teams do we have out there?  All of them would immediate violate professional relationship standards and someone would have to transfer/quit.

2. Adultry.....how much of this is going on that we would have to deal with.

3.  Financial responsibility....the military takes a very hard core stance on this.

4.  DUI....again the military takes a very hard view of this.

5.  Homosexuality.....do we really want to go there?

Do I think that we could develop some CAP UCMJ that would operate 24/7 and give the corporation some power to discipline our members other than just kicking them out and reporting them to the authorities?  Maybe....but do you want to give that power to the same guys you think are abusing their already limited power?

[DNall]

Okay here are immediate problems with the UCMJ and applying it to CAP.

1.  Fraternization.  How many husband/wife....parent/child teams do we have out there?  All of them would immediate violate professional relationship standards and someone would have to transfer/quit.

2. Adultry.....how much of this is going on that we would have to deal with.

3.  Financial responsibility....the military takes a very hard core stance on this.

4.  DUI....again the military takes a very hard view of this.

5.  Homosexuality.....do we really want to go there?

Do I think that we could develop some CAP UCMJ that would operate 24/7 and give the corporation some power to discipline our members other than just kicking them out and reporting them to the authorities?  Maybe....but do you want to give that power to the same guys you think are abusing their already limited power?

1. Don't know that it's a big problem. Lots of military marriages with both in. Parent child isn't a problem. A dad/son jumped into I think it was Grenada together in te 82nd, both in the same company, think the son was an officer & dad was a SNCO, but dn't quote me on that. Lots of similiar issues in the guard with multiple family  members in the same units. There may be situations where you need to move someone on the rolls to Gp/Wg in order to avoid the appearance of inpropriety, but I gotta be honest with you, I think we need some stronger ethics rules on this point anyway. I really have a problem with a parent being TCO/CDC/Sq CC over their kid. I know there are plenty of cases where it is done well with the utmost professionalism, but there are at least as many cases where there is the appearance of inpropriety & a few cases of real favoritism & outright breaking the rules. I think UCMJ is a good guide for what those standards should be, regardless if it is applied to CAP or not.

2. Adultry? I take a pretty dim view of it too & think it should be an offense for which you should be thrown out on your butt.

3. Financial Responsibility... that's considered more for security rating purposes, and to an extent integrity, but look at what we do in CAP. We finance out of our own pockets AFAMs & then get reimbursed later. That can't happen if you're overdrawn.

4. DUI/Drugs/etc... again share the dim view.

5. homosexuality... Ask Peter Pace about that one. Whatever man, it comes with the rest of the rules & I got no problems with the current standard.

I believe I mentioned that non CAP member (as a civilian) would be able to excercise UCMJ authority. The only ability to legally discipline anyone under UCMJ would & could only exist at CAP-USAF or possibly Air Staff (I'm not real clear on which). However I very much do think that you are 100% accountable for your actions 24/7, and if you behave in a manner not consistent with CAP officership in your private life, that should very much be grounds for your removal, and I do wish there were more teeth on the back end of that process. Apply that standard equally from national commander to the newest SM & I think things get better in a hurry. I'm not saying that's the best way to do things, and again don't want to bog down the system, but I got no issues with UCMJ & very much think CAP members should live up to at least those standards.

[lordmonar]

1. Don't know that it's a big problem. Lots of military marriages with both in. Parent child isn't a problem. A dad/son jumped into I think it was Grenada together in te 82nd, both in the same company, think the son was an officer & dad was a SNCO, but dn't quote me on that. Lots of similiar issues in the guard with multiple family  members in the same units. There may be situations where you need to move someone on the rolls to Gp/Wg in order to avoid the appearance of inpropriety, but I gotta be honest with you, I think we need some stronger ethics rules on this point anyway. I really have a problem with a parent being TCO/CDC/Sq CC over their kid. I know there are plenty of cases where it is done well with the utmost professionalism, but there are at least as many cases where there is the appearance of inpropriety & a few cases of real favoritism & outright breaking the rules. I think UCMJ is a good guide for what those standards should be, regardless if it is applied to CAP or not.

So you do have a problem and see the problem with this situation.  In the military the husband/wife, fathere/son, etc situations are the exceptions not the norm because we make an effort to insure there is no conflict of intrest.  Husband/wife are more often than not in different squadrons or workcenters.  In CAP we do not have that luxury.   

2. Adultry? I take a pretty dim view of it too & think it should be an offense for which you should be thrown out on your butt.

Cool....so let's start gearing up the CAP court martial.

3. Financial Responsibility... that's considered more for security rating purposes, and to an extent integrity, but look at what we do in CAP. We finance out of our own pockets AFAMs & then get reimbursed later. That can't happen if you're overdrawn.

Yes....but if we are under the UCMJ we have to prosecute all bounced checks the same way the USAF does.  Even the ones to Mc Donald's and the Wal Mart.

4. DUI/Drugs/etc... again share the dim view.

Again...let's start gearing up the Article 15 process and processing the demotions.

5. homosexuality... Ask Peter Pace about that one. Whatever man, it comes with the rest of the rules & I got no problems with the current standard.

The current USAF standard or the current CAP standard?

I believe I mentioned that non CAP member (as a civilian) would be able to exercises UCMJ authority. The only ability to legally discipline anyone under UCMJ would & could only exist at CAP-USAF or possibly Air Staff (I'm not real clear on which). However I very much do think that you are 100% accountable for your actions 24/7, and if you behave in a manner not consistent with CAP officership in your private life, that should very much be grounds for your removal, and I do wish there were more teeth on the back end of that process. Apply that standard equally from national commander to the newest SM & I think things get better in a hurry. I'm not saying that's the best way to do things, and again don't want to bog down the system, but I got no issues with UCMJ & very much think CAP members should live up to at least those standards.

We can do that with out being under the UCMJ.  Saying that the UCMJ authority only rests with CAP-USASF or Air Staff does nothing at all.  In order for the UCMJ (specifically Article 15) to work is to put it in the hands of the lowest echelon possible.  You can't be going up to the Air Staff every time a cadet or SM is late for a show time or mouths off to his superior.

Also the UCMJ would put a lot of power in the hands of CAP leadership.  This site for instance could be legally shut down by CAP and everyone who posts here could get article 15's for disrespect.

Should we follow the principles of the UCMJ?  Sure.  Should we be held to high standards and kicked out if we fail to meet them?  Sure.  But do we really want to give UCMJ powers to our CAP leadership?  This is real power...federal conviction....going to jail.....taking money from your pay check....sort of power.  That really scares me.

[DNall]

Sorry for the excessive quoting...

1. Don't know that it's a big problem. Lots of military marriages with both in. Parent child isn't a problem. A dad/son jumped into I think it was Grenada together in te 82nd, both in the same company, think the son was an officer & dad was a SNCO, but dn't quote me on that. Lots of similiar issues in the guard with multiple family  members in the same units. There may be situations where you need to move someone on the rolls to Gp/Wg in order to avoid the appearance of inpropriety, but I gotta be honest with you, I think we need some stronger ethics rules on this point anyway. I really have a problem with a parent being TCO/CDC/Sq CC over their kid. I know there are plenty of cases where it is done well with the utmost professionalism, but there are at least as many cases where there is the appearance of inpropriety & a few cases of real favoritism & outright breaking the rules. I think UCMJ is a good guide for what those standards should be, regardless if it is applied to CAP or not.

So you do have a problem and see the problem with this situation.  In the military the husband/wife, fathere/son, etc situations are the exceptions not the norm because we make an effort to insure there is no conflict of intrest.  Husband/wife are more often than not in different squadrons or workcenters.  In CAP we do not have that luxury. 

I understand. In CAP we should also be making a very strong effort to address that same conflict of interest & appearance of inpropriety. Like I said, it really is only a problem if a family member is a line commander or TCO in a position to grant favoritism with little checks & balances. UCMJ or not, we should have ethics rules that prevent that, which may indeed at times require reassignment. I can easily be assigned to Gp/Wg & still attend & be functional at a Sq my wife or girlfriend is in. And I can be a Deputy cdr for cadets when my girlfriend is ES officer.

2. Adultry? I take a pretty dim view of it too & think it should be an offense for which you should be thrown out on your butt.

Cool....so let's start gearing up the CAP court martial.

Alright sounds good. I'm serious, that's messed up. If you can lie & break your oath on that level, behave on that level of immorality, then how can you possibly serve duty as a CAP officer with core values? And if you can't do that you're of no use to us.

3. Financial Responsibility... that's considered more for security rating purposes, and to an extent integrity, but look at what we do in CAP. We finance out of our own pockets AFAMs & then get reimbursed later. That can't happen if you're overdrawn.

Yes....but if we are under the UCMJ we have to prosecute all bounced checks the same way the USAF does.  Even the ones to Mc Donald's and the Wal Mart.

Yes I understand, and that's fine. I explained why CAP members have to be financially responsible from a practical standpoint, and I would stick to that. I think you'd get some administrative trouble, but not prosecuted (see below)

4. DUI/Drugs/etc... again share the dim view.

Again...let's start gearing up the Article 15 process and processing the demotions.

Okay.

5. homosexuality... Ask Peter Pace about that one. Whatever man, it comes with the rest of the rules & I got no problems with the current standard.

The current USAF standard or the current CAP standard?

I got no problem with the current UCMJ standard. I think a lot of parents would have trouble with an openly gay officer over their kids. I don't want to get into boy scout like issues with this, and frankly I wouldn't make this a CAP rule, but if we're debating going under UCMJ or not, this particular rule doesn't sway me one way or the other.

I believe I mentioned that non CAP member (as a civilian) would be able to exercises UCMJ authority. The only ability to legally discipline anyone under UCMJ would & could only exist at CAP-USAF or possibly Air Staff (I'm not real clear on which). However I very much do think that you are 100% accountable for your actions 24/7, and if you behave in a manner not consistent with CAP officership in your private life, that should very much be grounds for your removal, and I do wish there were more teeth on the back end of that process. Apply that standard equally from national commander to the newest SM & I think things get better in a hurry. I'm not saying that's the best way to do things, and again don't want to bog down the system, but I got no issues with UCMJ & very much think CAP members should live up to at least those standards.

We can do that with out being under the UCMJ.  Saying that the UCMJ authority only rests with CAP-USASF or Air Staff does nothing at all.  In order for the UCMJ (specifically Article 15) to work is to put it in the hands of the lowest echelon possible.  You can't be going up to the Air Staff every time a cadet or SM is late for a show time or mouths off to his superior.

Also the UCMJ would put a lot of power in the hands of CAP leadership.  This site for instance could be legally shut down by CAP and everyone who posts here could get article 15's for disrespect.

Should we follow the principles of the UCMJ?  Sure.  Should we be held to high standards and kicked out if we fail to meet them?  Sure.  But do we really want to give UCMJ powers to our CAP leadership?  This is real power...federal conviction....going to jail.....taking money from your pay check....sort of power.  That really scares me.

I understand the desire to put UCMJ at the lowest echelon (Sq, not Flight), and if something like that were to be the case I'd revive my argument that local units be redesignated flights & all the other good reasons that come with that. The law is that civilians cannot excercise UCMJ authority over anyone, period. It doesn't matter that our whole chain of command are civilians. The power to bring charges, by law, reverts to the next higher echelon till that commander is an AF officer. That means the LOWEST it could legally get would be the Region LO, but I'm not positive on how CAP-USAF is defined. I believe the way it is written now that CAP-USAF is an advisory & oversight org w/o direct authority over CAP & that the direct authority that the AF hold exists at A3/SHA. I really don't know on that one though.

The reason I make that point though is it means you have to do something pretty dang serious to have the charges rise all that way & be formally filed. You commit adultry for instance, the CAP IG investigates, recommends charges to the Gp CC, Wg CC, Reg CC, Nat CC... at any poiont in this process they can address it administratively (meaning our existing disciplinary system resulting in you being thrown out)... only when it is the most extreme of situations could that charge make it all the way thru the process to the AF for formal charges (meaning almost impossible).

The big thing that would come from this is AF investigators would have authority to look at situations in CAP. And that all members including leadership would be bound by the same rules, which are basically fair.

I would absolutely agree with you though that this isn't strictly necessary. What we should do instead is look to UCMJ as a guide, and from it write our own CAP-CMJ, which equate more to ethics rules & spell out penalties for offenses, while better defining penalties & expanding the range of options available.

[lordmonar]

The law is that civilians cannot excercise UCMJ authority over anyone, period. It doesn't matter that our whole chain of command are civilians.

Well that's the point.....not only do civilians never exercise UCMJ authority over military....the military does not exercise UCMJ over civialians (except in very limited circumstances)...hence if CAP were to come under the UCMJ we would no longer be civilians....ergo....your argument about only CAP-USAF having authority would is null.

[Hoser]

CAP under the Uninformed Code of Military Injustice? That is the most absurd idea I have heard in ages. This isn't the military. This is a volunteer organization. If I wanted to be under the UCMJ I'd have stayed in the military

[DNall]

The law is that civilians cannot excercise UCMJ authority over anyone, period. It doesn't matter that our whole chain of command are civilians.

Well that's the point.....not only do civilians never exercise UCMJ authority over military....the military does not exercise UCMJ over civialians (except in very limited circumstances)...hence if CAP were to come under the UCMJ we would no longer be civilians....ergo....your argument about only CAP-USAF having authority would is null.

That's the gray area we're talking about right there. The very limited circumstances under which CAP is acting on military orders to perform a military mission & using military provided resources to do it. That is pretty clearly within the bounds. However, it doesn't make any of us officers capable of being delegated UCMJ authority over other civilians. That authority cannot be delegated even to a civilian director of an AF agency (even if that were by some crazy chance happen to be a MAJCOM) sitting in a postion that if it were held by a military officer they would have that authority.  There's just no circumstance under which CAP members could bring UCMJ charges against each other, ever. It would always have to be a recommendation that CAP-USAF or higher would have to look at, do their own investigation, and choose to proceed of their own accord.

The real issue is we can debate if & to what extent CAP members are bound by UCMJ under very narrow circumstances like on AFAM, but it seems like it doesn't apply the rest of the time. That being the case, I'd say again that we should look to a lot (not necessarily all) of the UCMJ for guidance in writting our own code of ethics & behavior with spelled out penalties & such, and tie that in with other federal laws to the best of our ability.

[RiverAux]

The real issue is we can debate if & to what extent CAP members are bound by UCMJ under very narrow circumstances like on AFAM, but it seems like it doesn't apply the rest of the time.

No, it doesn't apply any of the time under any circumstances.

[lordmonar]

Dnall....have you ever tired to cut military orders?  It takes a lot longer than most SAR missions last.

It would not matter because no one would ever be on orders long enough to actually come under the UCMJ and the additional paperwork would do nothing to increase accountablity...nor would it help with military investigations into our daily operations because we would not be under them at that time.

Like I said we would have to be under the UCMJ 24/7...not just for the duration of the AF Assigned mission.

Also those limited circumstances I mentioned is if you are actually integrated with a military unit in the field.  As far as I know it has never been involked in the last 20 years or so.

[DNall]

The point made earlier is US treaty seems to require the US to bind certain people under certain circumstances to UCMJ, and CAP would fit those circumstances in some instances. A military prosecutor could make that case I think fairly successfuly in court given the right case, but you'd have to really piss them off pretty bad to find out.

There's some cases where CAP officers have been charged with federal crimes for things done as CAP officers, but never under UCMJ. Why would you try to make the extra layer of complexity when they've done something you can convict on w/o it.

I understand... the only benefit I can see from being under UCMJ would in fact come from it being in force 24/7. That is clearly not the case now, and it would take some serious changes that aren't going to happen to make it the case.

This is why I'm saying the better idea is to look at UCMJ (and some DoD regs) as a guide in writing a code of conduct, behavior, & ethics. And in doing that I'd take the opportunity to spell out right under the rule when the stated behavior is also a violation of federal law (other than UCMJ) and that it be mandatory for those cases to be referred for prosecution in addition to the CAP disciplinary system (which also needs a lot of work).

Opening it up to AF investigators & brining everyone in CAP under the same rules regardless of grade or position would be a good thing... well really it'd be a massive pain in the butt, but it'd set the ethics issues right or at least make it less flagrant. I think you'd find general support from membership to bring CAP to heel under AF governance... again a different issue, but I think that may be part of the motivation behind this thought process.

[lordmonar]

Well let me tell you how it is overseas.  U.S. Civilians are not under the UCMJ and not under U.S. laws....depending on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) it details who gets jurisdiction over a criminal.

The UCMJ does not normally...in peace time...apply to civilains.  DoD contractors, GS Employees, NAF Employees, Local Hires or SOFA Dependants.

All the military can do is turn over criminals over to the local police for prosecution.  In japan and Germany the local police would not normally touch a crime committed on base.  So I have seen civilians and dependants get caught red handed stealing tens of thousands of dollars and get off scott free....the just got sent back to the states. 

The limited circumstances where civilians come under the UCMJ is where they are in the field with a combatant unit.

Could a military prosecutor maybe try to apply this to us?  Sure....but I highly doubt any military judge would ever let it fly....not to mention the ACLU.

In the mean time....who pays for the investigation?  Who pays for the defense attorney?  Who pays for the pre-trial confinement?  Who pays for the witnesses, and court board?

Just moving us under the UCMJ would entail more money than we currently have in our budget just to set up the infrastructure to support it.  There would have to be a CAP JAG working full time and Area Defense Counselors for the defense.  A military (and he would have to be CAP) judge (or judges) to run a circuit and sit on all these trials.

Then it would make all active duty enlisted military personnel ineligible for CAP membership because it would put us into a split enlisted/officer status.

[ddelaney103]

Is there _any_ reason for us to be under UCMJ?

NO.

I have never heard of a case of wrongdoing that couldn't be handled by either CAP administrative procedures or Federal/State/Local law.

Barring that, this just becomes a late night dorm room discussion:

"Dude, what if we were under UCMJ?  They'd have to take us seriously then!"

"Whoa, maybe we'd get metal insignia and they's salute us!"

"(she-dog)'n Camaro, baby!"

Give it a rest...

[Becks]

Agreed with most everything said here. CAP is not military, therefore has no reason to be held under the UCMJ. 
In regards to bringing up SDFs, you are correct we are held under state UCMJ at all times because we are State Soldiers. 
I may do a lot of the same things as a CAP member that I do a State Guardsman, but at the end of the day on paper it says one is military and one is not, clear and simple.
Now CAP getting reemployment protection, thats a whole different conversation...

[DNall]

The limited circumstances where civilians come under the UCMJ is where they are in the field with a combatant unit.

Acting as part of a paramilitary/irregular force on orders from competent military authority is the same as if they were there with you directing your activity. It doesn't matter if you are in a combat environment or in your underwear telecommuting from your home computer. Basically, it's the same legal status as an SDF would be afforded, but their officers would be treated as officers & ours would not. It is dicey to be sure, but that's the technical interpretation.

Again though, I'm not arguing to have CAP covered by UCMJ. As I said, I would have no interest in having our cases wasting the time of the military justice system. Not to mention nothing from that process could turn out especially good for CAP.

What I would argue for is a CAP code of justice (or whatever you want to call it) which mimics UCMJ & other ethics laws/regs within a fair & impartial CAP disciplinary system. CAP members do need to be held acountable 24/7 & to very similiar standards to the military, and we should take full advantage of criminal/civil law to follow up disciplinary actions, that shouldn't even be optional. The rest of my view has to do with governance.

[lordmonar]

Again though, I'm not arguing to have CAP covered by UCMJ. As I said, I would have no interest in having our cases wasting the time of the military justice system. Not to mention nothing from that process could turn out especially good for CAP.

What I would argue for is a CAP code of justice (or whatever you want to call it) which mimics UCMJ & other ethics laws/regs within a fair & impartial CAP disciplinary system. CAP members do need to be held acountable 24/7 & to very similiar standards to the military, and we should take full advantage of criminal/civil law to follow up disciplinary actions, that shouldn't even be optional. The rest of my view has to do with governance.

Okay....how much is going to cost?

How many FLIRS can we buy instead?

Just 2b them instead!

[DNall]

Sure, but 2b gets abused, and can you 2b someone for a DUID outisde of CAP? It wouldn't come up to prevent them from joining. You don't think we need some ethics rules, a 24/7 standard, and no one above the rules from top to bottom? I think that'd change a lot of things about CAP, that would in turn result in the kind of people retaining in the org & rising to command that would go out & get everything else we need. Core values have to be number one. No amount of gear, missions, or anything else can come in front of that.

[lordmonar]

Sure, but 2b gets abused, and can you 2b someone for a DUID outside of CAP? It wouldn't come up to prevent them from joining. You don't think we need some ethics rules, a 24/7 standard, and no one above the rules from top to bottom? I think that'd change a lot of things about CAP, that would in turn result in the kind of people retaining in the org & rising to command that would go out & get everything else we need. Core values have to be number one. No amount of gear, missions, or anything else can come in front of that.

It is a lot easier and cheaper to change the CAPR to allow you to 2b someone for Non-CAP activities then it is to create a CAPCMJ and run a pseudo Court System.

As far as a 24/7 ethics code...not I don't think we need one of those because I am not CAP 24/7 and I certainly don't want to be the public morality Nazi for my squadron.

We have core values and they are number one....if you have looked over the CAP Foundations Training you would see that they are covered extensively.

And believe me....if I were a squadron commander again and I had someone who I thought was a liability to the program he would not last long.

I can alway demote him, 2b him, pull his certifications, reassign him to head floor sweeper.  There are lots of way that already exist to discipline a bad member.

[DNall]

I didn't say court system with trials & crap. I do however mean a disciplinary system independent of the chain of command (again with the ethics & abuse of power isssues). Too often our current lack of a system is abused, and clearly it doesn't apply universally. That's what needs to be changed. Liberty & justice for all or something along those lines... no one above the rules & everyone trusts they'll get a fair shake.

[SarDragon]

Just say NO!

I left the UCMJ completely behind in 1999. I don't want or need it any more.

[lordmonar]

I didn't say court system with trials & crap. I do however mean a disciplinary system independent of the chain of command (again with the ethics & abuse of power isssues). Too often our current lack of a system is abused, and clearly it doesn't apply universally. That's what needs to be changed. Liberty & justice for all or something along those lines... no one above the rules & everyone trusts they'll get a fair shake.

Sounds like a court system to me.

[DrJbdm]

As a Police Officer, I'm held to a very high moral standard, Both on duty and off duty. I can't just decide to go cheat on my wife or drive drunk or go act a fool at a bar with my friends and get drunk and stupid. Those are all activities that any civilian job you work at probably would say "Well, as long as it's on your time" Me and every other Police Officer can not go do those things without facing possible disciplinary actions. That holds true both for us full time officers and the non paid volunteer reserve officers in the department. there is one standard and we all live with it.

  Cap needs to be much the same way, As Officers we should be held to the same standards. As members and Officers of the Civil Air patrol we represent the United States Air Force and the Federal Govt. We need to let our personal lives reflect that. I personally don't think there's a place in our organization for someone with questionable morals. Cheating on your spouse, doing drugs, financial irresponsibility and drinking to excess in a public place are all examples of poor moral and character values. As Officers we should reflect the highest character values, both in and out of uniform. You never know who sees you and recognises you.

   How you live your personal life, reflects more on your character and values then how you act when you attend CAP meetings and activities. We need to be held accountable for such actions.

[lordmonar]

As a Police Officer, I'm held to a very high moral standard, Both on duty and off duty. I can't just decide to go cheat on my wife or drive drunk or go act a fool at a bar with my friends and get drunk and stupid. Those are all activities that any civilian job you work at probably would say "Well, as long as it's on your time" Me and every other Police Officer can not go do those things without facing possible disciplinary actions. That holds true both for us full time officers and the non paid volunteer reserve officers in the department. there is one standard and we all live with it.

  Cap needs to be much the same way, As Officers we should be held to the same standards. As members and Officers of the Civil Air patrol we represent the United States Air Force and the Federal Govt. We need to let our personal lives reflect that. I personally don't think there's a place in our organization for someone with questionable morals. Cheating on your spouse, doing drugs, financial irresponsibility and drinking to excess in a public place are all examples of poor moral and character values. As Officers we should reflect the highest character values, both in and out of uniform. You never know who sees you and recognises you.

   How you live your personal life, reflects more on your character and values then how you act when you attend CAP meetings and activities. We need to be held accountable for such actions.

And I agree with this....and we can acheive that with a minor rewrite of the existing CAP regulations.  We don't need to reinvent a UCMJ like system.

[Psicorp]

As a Police Officer, I'm held to a very high moral standard, Both on duty and off duty. I can't just decide to go cheat on my wife or drive drunk or go act a fool at a bar with my friends and get drunk and stupid. Those are all activities that any civilian job you work at probably would say "Well, as long as it's on your time" Me and every other Police Officer can not go do those things without facing possible disciplinary actions. That holds true both for us full time officers and the non paid volunteer reserve officers in the department. there is one standard and we all live with it.

  Cap needs to be much the same way, As Officers we should be held to the same standards. As members and Officers of the Civil Air patrol we represent the United States Air Force and the Federal Govt. We need to let our personal lives reflect that. I personally don't think there's a place in our organization for someone with questionable morals. Cheating on your spouse, doing drugs, financial irresponsibility and drinking to excess in a public place are all examples of poor moral and character values. As Officers we should reflect the highest character values, both in and out of uniform. You never know who sees you and recognises you.
   How you live your personal life, reflects more on your character and values then how you act when you attend CAP meetings and activities. We need to be held accountable for such actions.

Actually, sir, if I get a DUI outside of work I can actually be fired since driving a company vehicle in the course of my duties is required.   

As far as CAP, if a member gets a DUI at the very least (perhaps at most) the member's CAP driver's license and flying privileges should be suspended.   This can be a National, Wing, Group, or Unit policy. The same goes for any other violation of what is considered to be the proper conduct of an Officer.   Being in a volunteer organization and participating in activities is a carrot.   Sometimes a stick is needed; but for the vast majority of the time, the carrot is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow.

Applying UCMJ to a civilian volunteer seems a bit too much of a stretch.  As  Lordmonar said, our regulations/policies should be enough.   As long as we maintain integrity and apply our own stick when needed, there is no reason we should subject our members to the bigger, more complicated, and often quite harsh stick of the UCMJ.

[Flying Pig]

HECK NO! 

Im sorry...if youve served a day in the military it would be very clear that this would not work. CAP has plenty of avenues to deal with discipline as well as applicable state laws for that wing.

[DNall]

HECK NO! 

Im sorry...if youve served a day in the military it would be very clear that this would not work. CAP has plenty of avenues to deal with discipline as well as applicable state laws for that wing.

Not really. There's a 2b or whatever you can creatively come up with, not much else. That needs to be better defined & laid out so the punishment meets the crime, not that it is abused to push people out of the way so others can take over units or move roadblocks to their advancement. Plus our leadership are not held to the same standards. They are literally above the law, and because of that a lot of things happen all out in the open that are clearly unethical, or at least appear that way. Equal justice, due process, etc. It's not that much to ask of a govt affiliated org.

I would agree with a system similiar to LE, and there is quite a lot of UCMJ that is similiar & could be looked to for guidance, that doesn't mean we're creating our own version of their jsutice system. There's no reason our IG system should not be independent of the chain of command & report up thru the BoG, and that AF should not have greater authority to investigate & pursue action when they see fit.

[ZigZag911]

I didn't say court system with trials & crap. I do however mean a disciplinary system independent of the chain of command (again with the ethics & abuse of power isssues). Too often our current lack of a system is abused, and clearly it doesn't apply universally. That's what needs to be changed. Liberty & justice for all or something along those lines... no one above the rules & everyone trusts they'll get a fair shake.

Equal justice under law??

Works for me!!

[lordmonar]

Dnall,

What sort of punishment are we talking about?  Fines, demotions, extra duty, jail time?  I mean what more do you want.  If a guy screws the pooch you can do all the counseling stuff.  You can demote him.  If that does not work you kick him out.  What more do you want to do? 

"Say you got a DUI last week....well CAP does not like that sort of thing...so we are going to take $200 from you or you can't come to meetings any more."

What part of volunteer organization don't you understand?  I, when I was a commander, did not need anything more than the power to demote and expel a member.  I did not want or need more.

Name one discipline problem in CAP that can't be solved with a good talking to, a demotion, a 2b or a call to the local cops?

[DNall]

Name one discipline problem in CAP that can't be solved with a good talking to, a demotion, a 2b or a call to the local cops?

That'd be pretty numerous. Part of the problem is the informality of the system. One guy gets a DUI & CC's discression he gets a 2b, another guy gets one & his CC says don't do that again & it doesn't even effect his cAP driver's license. You'd get a big argument with a lot of people if you told them CAP has any say over theri behavior away from the organization, when that's a fundamental part of being in the military or any other trusted profession.

CAP is indeed a volunteer organization. You volunteer full on knowing the rules & obligations (or are quickly instructed), and after that you are obligated to duty & everything that comes with it, and if you don't liek that then you have every right to leave. The only dif in the military is you get paid for not having the choice to leave or refuse duty.

What I'm envisioning would:
1) state violations of criminal/civil law tied to penalties in CAP (ie certain things will get you kicked out, you should be suspended while awaiting trial, some lesser things may require counselling, repeated minor offenses [pattern of behavior] may get you kicked, etc).
2) state things you do wrong in CAP that may br grounds for civil/criminal charge & REQUIRE official referal for prosecution.
3) Lesser offenses in CAP tied to punishments, still with a margin of discression but with enough teeth that the punishment fits the crime.
4) an independent system for a certain level of disciplinary action that is beyond command influence (if that requires trials then so be it, if not then all the better).
5) everyone bound by the same rules all the time no matter what with no exceptions & & a dump truck to drop on your head if you try covering things up.
6) greater capability for AF to investigate & take action as they see fit to clean up the system & maintain their standards in their auxiliary - cause you're the same person on a mission as you are off it.

[DeputyDog]

Part of the problem is the informality of the system. One guy gets a DUI & CC's discression he gets a 2b, another guy gets one & his CC says don't do that again & it doesn't even effect his CAP driver's license.

If you actually go by the regulations, what you said was incorrect:

c. <snip>
1) DUI/DWI.
2) Three or more moving violations.
3) Six or more non-moving violations.
4) Reckless driving resulting in injury or property damage.
5) Vehicle felony (hit and run, negligent homicide, theft, assault with a motor vehicle)
<snip>
d. Commission of any of the driving offenses above will be reported to the wing commander immediately and will result in the revocation of the member's CAPF 75 and suspension of all CAP driving privileges. The wing commander will determine the length of suspension. Permanent revocation of CAP driving privileges will be considered.

[Flying Pig]

CAP is a volunteer organization and with all volunteer organizations, they count on people doing the right thing.  If they screw up..you boot them.  If its illegal, call the cops.  If your in a rift with your Sq Com, change units.  If its civil, CAP can sue them on the Peoples Court.
Other than removing someone from the program, CAP has no enforcement arm to impose or carry out sentences.  Its a volunteer program, nobody can MAKE me do anything!   Thats why leadership is so important.  None of have to be here.  Talk about a leadership challenge. 

Why would CAP or its members even want this hassle?  You think dues are expensive now?! If CAP ever got to the point where we needed this, Id say we scrap CAP all together because it failed.  I say we create a CAP Secret Service Specialty Track.

Nall, what you "envision" would be a bureaucratic and paperwork nightmare! Trials?  You mean here I "volunteer" to show up?  Who's going to make me come to a trial?  Is there going to be a CAP warrant system?  The difference with the military isn't that you get paid for not having a choice, its that they have the authority to throw you in the slammer and take everything away from you.  Believe me, Ive seen guys refuse duty.  And they get shipped to brig.

That gets us back to the word volunteer.  Any punishment CAP imposes, other than whats already in place, I would have to volunteer for. 
As far as any actions requiring an official referral?  Referral to who?  The District Attorney?  Whos going to do the DA paperwork and write the warrant.  Thats what a referral is.  You write an arrest warrant for a judge to ultimately sign if He/She and the DA determine there is Probable Cause for an arrest.  At least thats how its done in Ca.  And last I checked, your unit admin officer can't swear to an arrrest warrant affidavit.  You need to be a sworn and employed law enforcement officer acting in the course and scope of your duty.  Not in the course and scope of Civil Air Patrol.  We already have a list of things that are grounds for civil and criminal charges.  They are called laws.  And we already have an enforcement arm.  The police.

As far as the military investigating further.  Ummmm...I'm a civilian, unless I commit some crime against the US or on a military base, they can't investigate me unless it was a violation of Federal Law.  Then it would fall to FBI.  And they sure aren't going to investigate me for a violation against CAP.  What if my Squadron isn't on a military base?  Then what?  One guy gets nailed federally because his unit is on a base, the other guy gets a citation for a misdemeanor from the local PD because he meets in High School classroom?

The CAP way isnt perfect.  But C'mon.  Your asking to give CAP members law enforcement authority? So now were going to need an independent Internal Affairs Division.  Do they answer to the National Commander?  The Secretary of the Air Force? The Attorney General maybe? 

[lordmonar]

So your problem with CAP disciplin is that it is not uniform across the squadrons...and you feel that if national spelled out exactly what THEY feel are 2bing offenses should be applied to every squadron....thereby taking any chance of mitigation or local conditions and tying the hands of the local commander.

Just to clue you in onto something.  Even with the UCMJ....we have the same exact problem on AD.  The Article 15 punishments are completely at the descretion of the squadron commander.  So we are always dealing with one DUI getting a suspended sentance and another DUI loosing 2 stripes and a butt load of money.  But....the point is....it is a tool to allow local commanders to maintain good order and disciplin.  If punishments were dictated by National (in the form of a regulation or policy letter) then you lose ability to control the situation at the local level.

Consistancy comes from oversight by higher levels of command.  We already know that this does not exist (I use uniform conformity as an example).

You may not like the idea that I keep a DUI guy in my squadron....but you have no idea how that may impact the squadron or the member.....you just feel they should be gone.  A guy screws up off CAP time you allow commanders to make the decision of what to do about it.  Group/wing commanders should be monitoring their squadron commanders and step in (as it allowed in the regs) when necessary.  If a squadron (or any level of commander) can't follow higher HQ's wishes...then you fire the commander.

As far as an independant disciplanry process....again....is that not some sort of court system?  And ultimately what can they do to a member?  Demote him, suspend him or kick him out.  Again....we have that power now why reinvent the wheel?

As far as USAF investigations.....well we are not in the military.  Unless that fundimental fact changes there is no use in doing anything along this lines.  What we really need is a BoG to stand up and take the powers that they already have.  The IG should be answering to them and they should be taking a more active role in developing policy and coordinating with the USAF.

[RiverAux]

If people feel they've received unjust punishment there is a mechanism to appeal it in CAP.  It may be incredibly biased in favor of "the man", but you can get heard.  So, if different folks are getting treated differently for the same offense they have an out. 

[lordmonar]

If people feel they've received unjust punishment there is a mechanism to appeal it in CAP.  It may be incredibly biased in favor of "the man", but you can get heard.  So, if different folks are getting treated differently for the same offense they have an out. 

And they can always sue.