Benefits of CAP Moving from Air University to Air National Guard

[Dragoon]

Exactly, just because your organization (CAP) has the same boss as another organization (say, State Guard) doesn't mean there has to be any kind of reciprocity of rank or authority between the parts.

As long as ICS is followed for incident management, there's no need to specify the generic authority of a Guardsman over a CAPer, or visa versa.  No need for commissions of any sort.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Totally outside of what CAP missions would be, a question--would CAP officers then hold state commissions, along with NG commissions of some sort (for CAP's Title 10 status)?  How would rank in the CAP work, if CAP would essentially be run by the state TAGs?

Would CAP members be then eligible to wear state ribbons and awards?

How would all of THAT work?

I don't see anything, except maybe the ribbons, changing because of this.  We don't need Commissions to do our jobs now.  We often operate under MOU's with the states now and don't require the TAG to command us.

How I would make this work:

1.  Place NHQ as a subordinate HQ under the Air National Guard.  (This is an Air Force Command, NOT the National Guard Bureau)

2.  Assign all wings, as they are now, under NHQ.

3.  Place each wing under the Operational Control of the Adjutant General, or Asst Adj. Gen for Air, if so desired by the AG.

4.  Eliminate Regions.

5.  NHQ would directly control cadet programs and AE.  TAG's would be relieved of responsibility for the cadet program, which would assure nationwide standardization.  (At least as much as we have now).

6.  The TAG would control the CAP Wing exactly as Air National Guard units are controlled now...  The Governor could call up CAP assets in a disaster, and the Federal taskings would come either through the TAG or in the case of SAR missions, directly to the involved Wing.  Just like the AF can directly activate an ANG fighter unit to intercept a target, and just as the AF can call up a C-130 out of the Guard for a transport mission.

7.  Commissions would be nice.  Access to Guard bases and training facilities would be nice.  Job protection under state laws when on state callups would also be nice.

[Dragoon]

Does every state have an Air Guard presence?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Does every state have an Air Guard presence?

I think so.

But if they don't now, they would under the plan described above!

[RiverAux]

Personally, I would see this as increasing the chances that CAP would be cut out of more missions rather than helping us in any way.  If TAG is getting the calls from AFRCC he is much more likely to activate various National Guard units to respond than CAP.  Just look at the relucactance of many states to use their own State Defense Forces and you'll get a glimpse of CAP under operational control of the National Guard. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Some TAGs will be reluctant to spend State money to give CAP missions.  In the case of a mission generated by AFRCC, it would directly activate the Wing involved, and not come through TAG.  The TAG would not have a choice on Federal missions, since CAP would be funded under Title 10.

Non-Federal missions would be dependent on two things:  1.  Available state funds, or 2.  Available local funds or funds from supported NGO's.  This is the case currently.

The biggest change that I see is that State AG's would control the process to authorize missions, rather than the current convoluted system now.  This would push the approval authority well down the food chain, and closer to home. 

[Dragoon]

I'd love to see USAF pawn the entire CONUS SAR mission on the guard.  Give 'em AFRCC.  After all, it's a Homeland Mission - give it to the homeland guys. 

[Dragoon]

Personally, I would see this as increasing the chances that CAP would be cut out of more missions rather than helping us in any way.  If TAG is getting the calls from AFRCC he is much more likely to activate various National Guard units to respond than CAP.  Just look at the relucactance of many states to use their own State Defense Forces and you'll get a glimpse of CAP under operational control of the National Guard. 

He's not going to activate guardsmen if AFRCC tells him they're only reimbursing him for fuel at less than $100 and hour, and he's got to cover all the salaries and other costs out of his state budget.

Nah, we're cheap.  We'll get the work.  As long as we can actually get it done.

The reason many states don't want to do much with SDFs is that many SDFs have nonexistent or lousy track records at actually getting things done.  As long as CAP performs, it'll get used.  If it can't perform - it doesn't deserve to be used.

[RiverAux]

I'm sorry, but this whole idea has never made any sense to me and I've never seen any advantage in it over the current system for the CAP, the NG, or the AF.  

[ddelaney103]

I'm sorry, but this whole idea has never made any sense to me and I've never seen any advantage in it over the current system for the CAP, the NG, or the AF. 

The main reason to do it is we're a local force and we should be more closely associated with the "local Air Force."

I think the CG and CGAUX mesh well is because the local base commander has work that needs to be done nearby, where the AUX can do it.  When you're the commander of a Minuteman missile wing, "What can CAP do for me?" is a much tougher question.

With the Guard, there are a lot more "local tasks" because you're a part of the Disaster Relief network.  You're also going to hear from the state gov't since their boss is your boss.  Having some unpaid professionals at your beck and call may take some work off your plate while you're dealing with ponying up bodies for the GWOT.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Advantages:

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

[RiverAux]

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

Problem already solved --- ICS system will have Air National Guard, Army National Guard, state police, etc. air assets working under one Air Operations Branch.  No need to have CAP under Air Guard to get the benefits of unity of command. 

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

[Dragoon]

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

Not really.  There's a big difference between having an MOU sitting in a drawer somewhere and actually "belonging" to someone.  Folks simply don't treat MOU'd folks as equals - there are always questions about reimbursement, quality of response, how well will these guys work and play with my guys, etc.  So they exhaust internal resources before even THINKING about activating MOUs.

But if they are  your guys all the time, you become familiar with them.  You inspect them.  You have the authority to tell them what to focus on.

And that's how you begin to trust them.  And once you trust them, you use them.

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

Probably an easier sell when the the TAG (politically connected to the State) is stumping for you.  And easier to get him to stump for you if you are "his guys."

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

Not true Nation-wide.  Around here some Guard barracks wanted to charge squadrons to hold meetings there, or give priority to the local Jazzercise class.  But if we were PART of the NG....things would get better.  Or we'd have a direct line to the boss, who happens to be their boss as well.

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

The change in the law would be to make us an instrumentality of the Guard, not USAF.  If they did this, then most laws pertaining to the guard would apply.

[RiverAux]

[ But if they are  your guys all the time, you become familiar with them.  You inspect them.  You have the authority to tell them what to focus on.

No, we will still be a non-profit corporation.  In another very long thread on this very same issue people just don't get that unless you change the very nature of CAP, it doesn't matter who CAP reports to operationally or where we are at administratively.  If people want to propose changing a whole bunch of laws at the federal and state level so that this can happen, thats fine.  But just having TAG being the one REQUESTING CAP to respond to a mission rather than the state emergency management agency or AFRCC doesn't change anything. 

[flyguy06]

If CAP went strickly to Emergency Services. I would probably resign my membership

[JohnKachenmeister]

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

Problem already solved --- ICS system will have Air National Guard, Army National Guard, state police, etc. air assets working under one Air Operations Branch.  No need to have CAP under Air Guard to get the benefits of unity of command. 

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

Your comment on the ICS is correct, but is not supported by law in most states.  The TAG is in command of all military assets as a matter of law.  The TAG may participate as an asset under ICS at his (or her) option. 

Placing CAP under the Air Guard at the National Level, and OPCON to TAGs at the state level will reduce our dependence on our corporate status.  We have it, and we should continue to use it when it works for us in terms of mission flexibility, but when it becomes an impediment, we should fall back on our quasi-government status, which is established under the same legal authority.  The Guard is accustomed to a dual-mission, state and federal.  Placing us, with state missions covered under a different Title of the US Code, under the National Guard seems like a very good fit.

There is a difference in having access to state armories as a matter of right vs. coming hat-in-hand as one of many community groups seeking support.

In states where they have already exercised this option, CAP members have job protection.

Colorado's response to the blizzards last winter is an interesting study.  The CAP was called up as a state asset nitially, paid by Colorado, and assigned to fly the main highways looking for stranded motorists.  They were under the command of the Guard, and rotary-wing assets were dispatched based on their call.  When the disaster was declared federal, the CAP was paid out of Title 10 funds, but there was no change in their chain-of-command.  TAG, to Wing, To IC, To crews.  After everybody was rescued, the federal funding stopped, and the CAP reverted back to state funding, and was assigned to locate herds of beef cattle so that feed could be brought to them by heavy-lift helicopters. 

Adding a bunch of civilian non-pilots from the state EOC into the mix would have been an unreasonable burden.  There was ONE NG rep to the EOC to coordinate all National Guard requests, to include requests for air support.  Air support requests would be analyzed by the air component commander, a pilot.  He would then assign the appropriate asset to the mission, fixed wing, heavy lift, rotary wing, etc.

[RiverAux]

Your comment on the ICS is correct, but is not supported by law in most states.  The TAG is in command of all military assets as a matter of law.  The TAG may participate as an asset under ICS at his (or her) option. 

Actually, TAG works for the Governor and if the Governor puts somebody else in charge of coordinating the state response TAG and any NG units that are activated will report to them. 

Given that all this is fairly new I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't really percolated through the system yet, but if not, it soon will.  And depending on the nature of the emergency and the agencies involved anyone who has taken ICS 400 knows that there are a variety of ways of structuring the command system for a particular incident. 

For example, in the CO snowstorm you mentioned I imagine that the NG was the primary responder and it probably made sense to have all air assets working through them.  But, that isn't always going to be the case.  For example, in a major wildfire emergency the NG air assets that would be of use will probably be reporting to the Division of Forestry (whatever they call it in your state) who will be coordinating all air assets over the fire. 

[ZigZag911]

Advantages:

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with Eco's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.
the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

Under ICS, all air assets can be under a single air branch director even though they are from different organizations.

Your other rationales for this change have a lot of merit.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK, let's take River's fire scenario as an example.

There is a big fire.  The Fire Fighting Guys cannot control it with available assets, including organic air assets.  The Head Fire Fighting Guy calls the governor and requests the National Guard.

The governor calls the TAG, and the TAG structures a military response.  He appoints a Task Force Commander, and that TF commander asks for certain assets.  He gets an infantry battalion to assist the Fire Fighting Guys with that level of firefighting that can be trained up quickly, freing up professional firefighters for more complex tasks.  He gets a military police unit to assist in evacuations and in traffic control, considering that some roads must be closed.  He gets an aviation battalion to sling-load in water.

IF the CAP is a part of the Guard structure, the TF commander will activate the Wing in the same manner that he just activated three battalions, and direct CAP to provide aerial recon for new fires, and to assit the MP's in maintaining road network control.  The Wing King is in on the plan from the start, and probably has already alerted his aircrew personnel.

IF the CAP is acting under the MOU with either the state or the County EMA, someone must make a decision to 1.  Review the MOU.  2.  Determine if activation is necessary.  3.  If it is a standard MOU, the EMA must first contact 1st Air Force and determine if the mission can be funded as a federal mission  4.  Determine if funding is available other than federal if the answer from 1AF is "NO."  5.  Contact the NOC for a mission number.  6.  The Wing Commander/alerting officer then appoints a CAP IC.  7.  The IC contacts the EMA to determine the scope of the mission.  8.  Wait while CAP assets are briefed and spooled up.  9.  Exercise the demobilization plan, because by the time all this has happened, the fire is out.

And you think we would get FEWER missions under the Guard?     

[RiverAux]

The NG helicopters and CAP would be reporting to the Air Ops Director, probably from the Div of Forestry.  CAP will be providing recon to them, not to the Guard. 

Under any conceivable situation, you are going to have to go through the NOC or AFRCC to activate CAP no matter what structure you've got.  The time when you could be activated under an MOU without having to go through one of those offices is long past and I don't see us going back.  CAP is not going to grant the NG the authority to call up CAP resources without their approval any more than they are to the state emergency management agencies now.