Following AFIs when CAP regs provide no guidance?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

There's a discussion on another thread (now locked, incidentally) that devolved into a discussion of whether CAP members should rely on Air Force regulations when CAP's directives are full of holes (like the haphazardly written CAPM 39-1). The discussion there revolved around restrictions CAP commanders have placed on wear of the Air Force FDU, and how they seem so misdirected.

At least a couple of folks said that AFIs and AFMs aren't binding on CAP. But I would contend that, yes, they are -- after all, for instance, we are supposed to train cadets using AFI 36-2203, the drill and ceremonies manual. There's no CAP manual anymore. We're encouraged to read the applicable AFPDs and AFIs regarding CAP's relationship with the mothership, and they indeed are applicable to us. Yada, yada....

Is it such a stretch to look at AFI 36-2903, the dress and appearance manual, when CAPM 39-1 is like swiss cheese by comparison? Especially since we wear Air Force uniforms with DISTINCTIVE INSIGNIA (but the uniform items themselves are the same), should we shun AFI 36-2903 when CAPM 39-1 is so sorely lacking? After all, it IS their uniform, semantics aside.

Discuss.

[Major Carrales]

There's a discussion on another thread (now locked, incidentally) that devolved into a discussion of whether CAP members should rely on Air Force regulations when CAP's directives are full of holes (like the haphazardly written CAPM 39-1). The discussion there revolved around restrictions CAP commanders have placed on wear of the Air Force FDU, and how they seem so misdirected.

At least a couple of folks said that AFIs and AFMs aren't binding on CAP. But I would contend that, yes, they are -- after all, for instance, we are supposed to train cadets using AFI 36-2203, the drill and ceremonies manual. There's no CAP manual anymore. We're encouraged to read the applicable AFPDs and AFIs regarding CAP's relationship with the mothership, and they indeed are applicable to us. Yada, yada....

Is it such a stretch to look at AFI 36-2903, the dress and appearance manual, when CAPM 39-1 is like swiss cheese by comparison? Especially since we wear Air Force uniforms with DISTINCTIVE INSIGNIA (but the uniform items themselves are the same), should we shun AFI 36-2903 when CAPM 39-1 is so sorely lacking? After all, it IS their uniform, semantics aside.

Discuss.

At first glance, I would say "yes," however, to what extend would this entail?  Only in matters of "Uniforms" or what per se.

There is also the fact that the Air Force Instruction documents are not binding to CAP personnel, unless they are officially approved by CAPNHQ (as with the Cadet D&C manual you mentioned).  That would be where you would have to begin with something like this.  Actually, a proposal up thtough the Chain of Command to that effect.

[notaNCO forever]

  I think it would be good to follow the AFIs where the regs are not clear. Of course it would probably be even better if people just used common sense . The most logical thing to do would be for national to close the holes in the regs, but we all no that isn't going to happen; at least in our lifetimes. Unless national says otherwise though I guess it is up to the local units to decide what to do, which I don't like because it results in less uniformity.

[Eclipse]

Unless specifically referenced in a CAP regulation, or CAP is specifically referenced in the AFI, they are non-binding on CAP members.  In most cases, references to CAP in an AFI stipulate how the USAF or another service is to interact with CAP, and binds that service to compliance.

In many cases the AFI's are more comprehensive, handy, or useful than what CAP provides, however that doesn't make them regulatory for us, any more than we can wade into the USAF uniform manual and declare we can wear items not approved for us because they are in a regulation of our parent service.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

...I guess it is up to the local units to decide what to do, which I don't like because it results in less uniformity.

A perpetual problem within CAP -- lack of uniformity.

In many cases the AFI's are more comprehensive, handy, or useful than what CAP provides, however that doesn't make them regulatory for us, any more than we can wade into the USAF uniform manual and declare we can wear items not approved for us because they are in a regulation of our parent service.

True, but (to use the uniform example) we know what uniforms we're authorized. What we can lean upon AFIs for is guidance on, for instance, what to wear under a flight suit, or to remind us that epaulets are supposed to always be pulled down to the shoulder seam, or that no item can protrude from blues pants pockets (smooth front)... or that hands in pockets is always unauthorized, or that... etc., etc.

[Eclipse]

True, but (to use the uniform example) we know what uniforms we're authorized. What we can lean upon AFIs for is guidance on, for instance, what to wear under a flight suit, or to remind us that epaulets are supposed to always be pulled down to the shoulder seam, or that no item can protrude from blues pants pockets (smooth front)... or that hands in pockets is always unauthorized, or that... etc., etc.

I agree, and that's generally how/why they are used. For example as I recall when the 3-button coat was approved, the only place to find guidance on its configuration (sleeve stripes), initially was the AFI.   I believe that most of what is in your example above is actually addressed by 39-1 or some other CAP doc.

But the fact that they are handy or might, by coincidence, contain useful information, doesn't mean they are regulatory.

When I advise my members about uniforms, I always say "39-1 plus any ICL's, addendums, and supplements, and you may use AFI 36-2903 as a guide for wear when an item is approved but lacks detail in CAP publications".

[Eclipse]

Unless national says otherwise though I guess it is up to the local units to decide what to do, which I don't like because it results in less uniformity.

Actually its not - most CAP regs are clear in that they are the sole authority on a respective issue (even when they actually aren't), and unless it specifies "see AFI-XXXX", then a member or commander using some other document as an authority does so at his own peril.

There's no blanket authorization that says "when in doubt, ask the USAF".  In fact, generally when a subject is not addressed its because the action or item is not authorized.  Remember, the regs tell you what you can do, to the exclusion of everything else.

If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

[Always Ready]

I use a variety of publications from various sources for guidance no matter what the topic. It gives me a more well rounded approach to things and it helps me understand other people's reasoning. However, if the publications I am using for guidance recommends doing something that is against or not with the spirit of CAP regs (regs, manuals, SOPs, etc. etc. etc.), then said guidance is ignored.

AF publications are useful. I couldn't put my uniform together back WIWAC with out them and a little book with a small ruler my dad gave me from clothing sales. 39-1 was, and still is, not new user friendly (and that was before all the ICLs).

There are several other organizations that can provide us with guidance. Local emergency management publications, leadership activities from the Army, aerospace newsletters from a local university or flying club...these are all examples of using outside resources for guidance.

PLEASE DO NOT SEE THEM AS REGULATORY...CAP regs, while not always clear and concise, cover most of the topics needed and the rest can easily deduced using common sense. Remember, guidance is supposed to help you achieve your objective, regulations tells you the who, what, when, where, why and/or how to achieve your objective.

[RiverAux]

No AFI means a hill of beans to CAP members trying to interpret a CAP regulation.  The several AFIs about CAP are binding on AF members who work with CAP and therefore can certainly have a meaningful impact on CAP, but thats as far as it goes. 

FYI, this is another difference between CAP and CGAux.  Basically, if the Aux specific manual doesn't cover something then the general CG regulation applies. 

[es_g0d]

It would do a lot for unity if our parent organization would write regulations, manuals, and instructions with its Auxiliary in mind.  We're not the Coast Guard Auxiliary, but clearly their relationship with the Coast Guard is better than ours with the rest of the Air Force.

A lot of it might come down enforceability.  On active duty, we can enforce mandatory instructions with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Air Guard is a little stickier.  In CAP, we have even fewer options to enforce "Air Force" regulations.  Nonetheless, we are able to usually get it right in CAP when its important. 

I think that there's wiggle room there: if the governing Air Force instruction for uniforms included CAP, we could probably fit in with only the same amount of violations that are currently out there.  Furthermore, the Civil Air Patrol could issue a supplement to cover additional areas specific to it (such as corporate attire).

I sometimes shudder to think that I'd like more Air Force involvement in the Civil Air Patrol, but if we're to remain the Air Force Auxiliary, its a necessity.

[Short Field]

I sometimes shudder to think that I'd like more Air Force involvement in the Civil Air Patrol, but if we're to remain the Air Force Auxiliary, its a necessity.

Why???  Are you aware of a move to eliminate us as the Civilian Auxiliary to the USAF??  Probably 95% of the USAF are extremely neutral about CAP.  We have a very small niche in the USAF world that we perform cheaply and efficiently.  We impact no combat capabilities so we can be used with little fuss and no concern about the impact on the "big picture".  Why would the USAF want to eliminate us??