Screen your members carefully

[USACAP]

That is insane, and yet very common. INFINTRY, queen of battle!
Trust but verify everyone. I have not seen stolen valor as a senior but can recall several instances as a cadet in the 80s/90s.

Just 2 weeks ago a student appeared at a class I was an assistant instructor for who claimed to be a DEVGRU bubba. He had a perfectly legit and honorable 8 year Navy career as a welder and salvage diver - but no Trident nor any "special ops" kinda training.
He had to forfeit the $8500 his agency paid to send him and depart with no graduation certificate. That's just painful and unnecessary.

Anyway, to the point, I think CAP should streamline the process for verifying US service member's records/history.
The FOIA process isn't cumbersome and CAP could pretty easily build a means (even if it's a CAP-specific form letter) for commanders to submit requests to the NPRC folks in Saint Louis.

But, but, but it's classified! All of my records are sealed! I was in the G-14 classified 22nd Marine Special Forces and all of my records were burned in the fire...

Even if they do provide docs, they need to be reviewed carefully. I'm pretty sure I related this before, but I'll give the Reader's Digest version. Had a guy show up to a wing level activity that everybody kept raving about. Former SF. Former LE K9 SAR guy from California. Former this. Expert that. When he submitted his supporting documentation from the "US Army School of INFINTRY" and was called on it, he took his dog and expertly disappeared into the night. Infintry.....ugh....

[Ned]

Bob, I see you retain your cheery, open-minded attitude toward NHQ and the senior leadership. 

But it appears that you share some common misconceptions about the membership processing procedures contained in CAPR 39-2 .

Initially, let me remind you that the FBI screening process is not a "background check."  It does not - and was never designed to - verify identity or verify facts about employment, military service, etc.  It simply tells us whether a given fingerprint card matches someone who has a criminal history on file with the FBI.  As you might imagine, only a small minority of applicants have "positive" returns from the FBI.  Which are handled as described in the regulation.

Perhaps more importantly, it is the unit commanders responsibility to validate the proof of identity documents required of every applicant.  Additionally, members of the Unit Membership Board (required in every unit) meet with every new applicant and assist the commander in determining the eligibility for each new member.

Restated, units do not scan or photocopy driver's licenses, birth certificates, passports, social security cards, etc., and send them along to NHQ.  Nor should they.  We have rules designed to protect PII.

Similarly, the responsibility for determining eligibility for the wear of military decorations (or the initial determination of edibility for advanced grade based on military achievement) rests squarely at the unit level.  Because unit commanders and staff officers are in the best position to examine documents (DD214s, orders, certificates, ID cards, etc. and speak with the applicant/member about the documents as part of the verification process.

I do know - 2 of 3 this summer had issues, both months in solving with zero pro-action by NHQ.

Since by regulation the response to positive returns from the FBI screening process is confidential, and cannot be shared with anyone outside NHQ, it is not hard to imagine why you were not briefed on any reasons for a delay in a particular membership application.  I suppose like any other bureaucratic process there may be delays and hiccups not related to eligibility screening returns, but after several hundred thousand fingerprint screenings processed by NHQ, it appears that they have it down pretty well.

That doesn't change the fact that we should not be letting people borrow a $350k asset with little more then a handshake and no idea who they might be (or not be).

Totally agree.  But I cannot imagine that a unit commander would do that.  I think unit commanders follow existing rules and validate the government identity documents provided by prospective members, have the prospective member meet with the Unit Membership Board, and wait for the FBI screening process to be completed. 

You follow the rules when you're in command, right?  Knowing your past successful command tours, I'd bet $100 that you never let "someone borrow a $350k asset with little more than a handshake and no idea who they who they [were]."  Would I lose my money?  Or did you follow the rules like other successful commanders?

[Eclipse]

Totally agree.  But I cannot imagine that a unit commander would do that. I think unit commanders follow existing rules and validate the government identity documents provided by prospective members, have the prospective member meet with the Unit Membership Board, and wait for the FBI screening process to be completed. 

I never said the BCG was an identity check, it is, in fact, a "Criminal Records Check".

As to the "membership board", for your review...
CAPR 39-2, Page 4
"1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadet sponsors, senior members and patron
members assigned to local units). All unit commanders must appoint a unit membership board to
assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants. Membership Boards may
consist of 1 to 3 members. Individuals related to the prospective member should not sit on the
Board. CAP Pamphlet 52-26, The CAP First Talk Guide, is an excellent resource and its use is
recommended when interviewing prospective members. Individuals in other membership
categories that wish to transfer into active units must also meet with the Unit Membership Board."

That's "1-3", which means in far too many cases, assuming the unit has a board at all, it's the CC as a check box.

Second, it is literally the policy of the Operations Directorate that pilots can fly CAP aircraft without Level one
or their background checks being completed as a vector to "encourage pilot recruiting".  I have this in writing as
I have personally raised the issue a number of times.

I can assure you with no hyperbole that we have far too many pilots in this organizaiton flying on a regular basis
that have never attended a meeting, the unit CC never met them, and the unit had no membership committee
at the time they joined.  Much of this information would be easily ascertained by running reports at the national
level, but no one seems to be interested in actually doing that, so when the issue is discovered, it's usually as part
of an SUI, and then it either is, or isn't, fixed. 

As to the "confidentiality" issue on the BCGs, a good CC follows up on the reason why a member is not in "A" status
after weeks. No, NHQ will not tell a CC why someone bounced, but they also do everything by regular mail unless
the member follows up personally.  4-6+ weeks with zero response, and then phone calls reveal that the FP card scan
was smudged and they couldn't be read "You'll need to submit a new one..." The member goes back to SQ1, and as NIN
said it's hard to have someone stay motivated who is now sitting in the back of the room with nothing to do
for 6 months with no indication that will change,  and that is what encourages CC's to take chances they may not be
comfortable with because "generally we have no issues".

And the above doesn't address the very real issue of members participating outside their wings where the local
activity POCs don't have access to their personnel files. The member shows up with an ID card, but is later
found to have no L1, BCG, CPPT, or any  combination of them.  BTDT.

The issue of stolen valor has been a problem in CAP since forever, since CAP tends to attract people inclined to want to
serve in uniform to start with and may have had some avenues closed, couple that with many units being so desperate
for people that the CC isn't willing to make an issue over something he may not understand anyway.

But on the more important issue of BCGs and who is allowed to do what, when, it's 2016.  You can complete employment
criminal and identity checks in a couple of business days, yet CAP can't get it done sometimes in months, and
still uses the regular mail for followups.  That's just not acceptable in an era where it is bleeding members and
desperate for new people to stay viable.

New members should get immediate notification via either email or telephone, copying the CC or personnel officer
whenever there is a problem, so that the member can follow-up immediately.

Domino's has a system that tells me in real-time where my order is from ingredients to delivery, yet new members
get dropped into a 42nd story building mail slot with the hope it doesn't get stuck on the 15th floor because there's
gum in the chute, and then no one tells anyone the status of anything until things change online.

Meanwhile, the unit CC is trying to keep the member convinced CAP has its act together and values them as a resource.

[Ned]

I can assure you with no hyperbole that we have far too many pilots in this organizaiton flying on a regular basis
that have never attended a meeting, the unit CC never met them, and the unit had no membership committee
at the time they joined.  Much of this information would be easily ascertained by running reports at the national
level, but no one seems to be interested in actually doing that, so when the issue is discovered, it's usually as part
of an SUI, and then it either is, or isn't, fixed. 

Really?  I'm certainly no expert at CAP IT, but I'm pretty sure there are no reports I could run at NHQ that would tell me:

1.  How many pilots have never attended a meeting (if for no other reason than NHQ does not track individual meeting attendance.)

2.  Who has met who in CAP.  (But I do know that commanders are required to meet prospective members and validate their ID documents.  Then personally annotate the F12 to that effect.  And I know that all prospective members must meet with the Unit Membership Board.)

3.  Exactly which units violate regulations by refusing to appoint Unit Membership Boards.  (We do see CI results of course, but that seems a little hit and miss.)

So I'm gonna go ahead and non-concur on your assessment of how easy it would be for your favorite fall guys (those guys at NHQ) to "easily ascertain" the truth of your unproven assertions.

But much more importantly, for your non-hyperbolic claim to be true would require commanders to routinely and consciously break multiple regulations designed to prevent your worst fears from occurring in the first place.

When you were a group commander, did you let your unit commanders get away with failing to appoint Unit Membership Boards, fail to validate ID documents, or even bother to meet their pilots?  Somehow I doubt it.  Because you did your job.  I'm sure it wasn't easy, but you did your duty and supervised and inspected your subordinate commanders.

Just like countless other CAP volunteers.

[Eclipse]

Run a report that shows which units have membership boards - that's a committee report in eServices.

Run a report showing join dates for senior members in those units w/o boards. Done.

Run a report for all members w/o Level 1, CPPT, or a current background check and compare with your pilot list.  Done.

There are about 20 different ways to use existing eServices reports to bubble the numbers up, certainly to easily confirm or
deny the issue, and then send the trouble spots the information to be fixed locally.

Or we can just continue to pretend there's no issue and compliment each other on what we did or didn't do in the past.

[Eclipse]

1.  How many pilots have never attended a meeting (if for no other reason than NHQ does not track individual meeting attendance.)

Someday NHQ will understand why this simple fact is a core of CAP's problems.

[RogueLeader]

1.  How many pilots have never attended a meeting (if for no other reason than NHQ does not track individual meeting attendance.)

Someday NHQ will understand why this simple fact is a core of CAP's problems.

And, this will fall to units to have to input, which will be another source of complaining about Echelons Above Reality^(tm) imposing new mandates that don't add value, and wastes members precious time, ad nauseoum.

[Ned]

Or we can just continue to pretend there's no issue and compliment each other on what we did or didn't do in the past.

Why don't we start with a concise statement of what you are self-proclaiming to be a "problem," accompanied by some evidence, some data, some something to establish the "problem."   Then we can talk about what eServices reports might solve "the problem."

If you are saying that some units don't have unit membership boards, then group commanders can apparently easily run the reports and get right on that.  If you are right, the problem gets solved in 10 minutes.

And if you really, honestly think that NHQ tracking of unit attendance is the "Core of CAP's problems" then all NHQ has to do is micromanage the units and all will be fine well before you retire.   Then what will you talk about here?

[Eclipse]

I live for the day that all we have to discuss here is CAP's mission successes, growing pains, and
how easy it is to manage a squadron.

Until then I would really like to join the CAP you are in Ned, it sounds much nicer then the one the rest of
us are members of.

[etodd]

I live for the day that all we have to discuss here is CAP's mission successes, growing pains, and
how easy it is to manage a squadron.

What? No uniform discussions?

[abdsp51]

I live for the day that all we have to discuss here is CAP's mission successes, growing pains, and
how easy it is to manage a squadron.

What? No uniform discussions?

Says the guy who has admitted to never owning the minimum uniform...

[JC004]

What the heck is going on in this topic?

[PHall]

What the heck is going on in this topic?

The "Usual Suspects" are doing their usual stuff. Same as any other day.

[JC004]

Well click.



Now conduct yourselves in an orderly fashion.