Civil Air Patrol Member's Use of MWR Facilities/Programs?

Started by RADIOMAN015, October 08, 2011, 04:58:04 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

abdsp51

One thing that has been said and I will reiterate AAFES/NEX, MWR and the commissary are separate entities.  Each sets its own policy in conjunction with DoD guidelines on who may use their facilities etc.  At Travis CAP is allowed to go to clothing sales, the BX, chow hall etc while during a function.  Normal use is clothing sales and out meeting place.  It is up to DECA who runs the commissary to allow anyone outside of certain DoD cardholders that is on them.  Most commissary's check for proper ID before sales anyhow and MWR facilities at least for the AF fall under the FSS squadron. 

This something that has been brought up by some contractors on the yard wanting and feeling like they should be allowed to use some facilities and get their feelings hurt when they are told no. 

Now this is entirely dependent on location and theater, but most places I have been CONUS this is the case.

rustyjeeper

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 28, 2012, 01:13:26 PM
Quote from: BrannG on May 24, 2012, 12:36:18 AM
First off, all your "wanna-be" screams, calm down.

Second, fact is CAP is the United States Air Force Auxiliary, and we are proud to a member of the Air Force Family, as the AOC puts it, CAP and the USAF are brothers and sisters in the Air Force Family. We are required to maintain PT if we are to wear the Air Force uniform, and it would be a nice "thank you" to CAP for performing missions on behalf of the United States Air Force to allow us use of the Commissary, BX, and Fitness facilities. Do we need a right to eat on base? Fact is, anyone can! So no.

No, we don't NEED these items. But yes, it would be a great way for the Air Force to say "Thank you". Why not? Commissary and BX are great shopping areas, and if you live close to a base like I do, it would be great! Fitness - thats a duh. We do after all represent the Air Force when we choose to wear the uniform.

Let's see --  Joe civilian joins CAP and gets a CAP ID card, does minimum effort at the squadron BUT is in the Commissary every week buying food for his extended family.   Surely that's an "earned" benefit by that CAP member isn't it ??? >:(     

Generally on MWR type facilities (depending upon demand for the services by higher priority service personnel and their dependents), CAP may be allowed to use (e.g. gym/fitness center) and that has been addressed in prior posts.  HOWEVER, personally, I'd like to see all of that better reviewed especially if there's crowding/waiting to use services, BUT I do understand the fiscal realities -- MWR/Services Squadrons need to show very high usage statistics at their facilities, so at some base locations even the local business support group may get access to selected MWR/Services.   

The problem with some CAP members is they live in a "fantasy world of military make believe" thinking they are contributing so much to AF operations that they are earning (entitled to) all these benefits.  This comes up time and time again in all of these posting threads.    My suggestion --  IF any member wants all those benefits than frankly go join the military and perform appropriate military duties to "earn" those benefits. :angel: 

Playing 'military dress up' at a squadron meeting once a week doesn't even come close to approaching the level of those that have "earned" those benefits. >:(  Wow, silly me, I could have just joined CAP and not put in 20 years in AD military service to get at least some of those "earned" benefits that military members get and have been extended to CAP members at some bases  ;). (as you see I'm just not a supporter for giving any pure "civilians" access to any military "earned" benefits).

RM


   

Just from my own obsevation any CAP member that does his or her grocery shopping at the commisary needs to get their head examined! I have seen prices there on par with the local supermarkets and in many cases slightly higher priced. Additionally as I understand the way it works at least in the CG exchange any profits are utilized to support MWR programs on the base! So in actuality, a member who did choose to buy their family's groceries there is choosing to support the local MWR program by purchasing there.
Thank you for your 20 years of service Radioman.
Please be aware however that you are not the only CAP member to have served his country in the past... I too served mine and as a CAP member if I am allowed to utilize facilities by the base command I will do so and feel no hesitance. Active duty always takes priority, that is how it should be and is. BUT there is no reason why CAP members who serve should not be allowed some lattitude and priveledges which generally are only availble to military or retirees. We donate our time and effort to support the armed forces. So far as those inactive members who are along for the free ride-
I suggest you redirect your efforts to getting Squadron and Wing Commanders to remove them from active membership status or terminate their membership instead of harassing hardworking CAP members.

abdsp51

Members are afforded some of those same privileges upon the discretion of the installation CC's discretion. 

a2capt

...and if the local CC  or their representative wants to offer it, what's the problem. If you don't like it. THEN DON'T USE IT.

How SIMPLE is that?

Honestly, if it supports MWR locally, I'd rather give my support there, where appropriate within the afforded privilege, MSA, etc. than Bentonville, AR, when possible, otherwise AR wins ;)

We as an organization, provide a valuable service, and MANY more appreciate that we CIVILIANS, bound by no one, WILLINGLY VOLUNTEER our time and even PAY our way.

Really, does leadership at NER-MA-015 put up with this garbage, or do we have a jeckyl and hyde here?

SarDragon

Commissary - an appropriated funds activity, with very specific, and mostly unalterable/unwaiveable rules. The base commander has little say.

Exchange - non-appropriated funds activity, essentially self-supporting. There are less strict limitations on the customer base, and the base commander has wider discretion.

MWR - another non-appropriated funds activity, with pretty loose rules. It, too, is self-supporting.

Regarding commissary prices, are you comparing brand-for-brand, size-for-size, or just general items? I have shopped in the commissary and exchange my entire life, and every time I do the comparisons, excluding any sales, I have always found the military stores to be cheaper. In addition, the lack of sales tax is an additional savings.

For you folks who "shop around", I'll bet that you spend as much in extra gas money as you save going to all those other stores.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

a2capt

Yeah, my experience has been primarily with the Exchange and MWR activities, I know the commissary is appropriated funds based and besides, I have alternate means for access to that, that has zero to do with CAP, and for that matter, the exchanges and MWR resources.  But in the past, I've had only two MSA's actually specify commissary access, one was because of the depth of our activity, and duration of stay, and the other was because the base was the only thing out there.

Though the tread is itself about MWR, and the aero club activity falls under that, and that's one example where we are specifically allowed access generally, but not the only, I've found, on an installation specific basis. I will say that we do utilize a lot with regards to cadet activities, which if anyone has a problem with, they can go pound hardened cement.

ol'fido

I also have the feeling that as the services begin to draw down in the next few years that many base commanders are anticipating a new round of BRAC. The number of people who use your base gym is a pretty minor thing for a committee to look at as opposed to some other factors, but it can't hurt either. So many commanders may be allowing anyone that they can possibly justify to use as  many base facilities as possible.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

rustyjeeper

Quote from: ol'fido on May 29, 2012, 11:13:58 PM
I also have the feeling that as the services begin to draw down in the next few years that many base commanders are anticipating a new round of BRAC. The number of people who use your base gym is a pretty minor thing for a committee to look at as opposed to some other factors, but it can't hurt either. So many commanders may be allowing anyone that they can possibly justify to use as  many base facilities as possible.

So quite possibly by utilizing these facilities (if allowed) We are in fact providing yet another "service" of sorts > helping to show use/ need of  military facilities just with facility utilization statistical information.

kinda blows up RM's reasoning that we are in CAP basically leeches or sponges sucking up the perks for personal beneifit..... 8)

of course now that it might actually prove to benefit the military, I am sure RM can always claim that we are somehow violating the core values by utilizing those same facilities DESPITE the possible benefit provided by use statistics...

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
I believe he means why is this a topic or a concern of yours...

Who cares.  RM's concerns are his and none of us can judge whether his concerns are valid or invalid.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on May 30, 2012, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
I believe he means why is this a topic or a concern of yours...

Who cares.  Why do you care what RM's concerns are?

Other than you obviously don't like him and give the appearance of going out of your way to comment negatively about everything he posts?

I don't, except that his busybody nonsense keeps coming up here  impuning the character and motivations of fellow members.

We all have a right and responsibility to judge  comments that impact the perception of CAP members, both internally and externally, especially when their premise is either based on a misunderstanding of how the universe works, or are simply wrong.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on May 30, 2012, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: bflynn on May 30, 2012, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 08, 2011, 07:33:37 PM
I believe he means why is this a topic or a concern of yours...

Who cares.  Why do you care what RM's concerns are?

Other than you obviously don't like him and give the appearance of going out of your way to comment negatively about everything he posts?

I don't, except that his busybody nonsense keeps coming up here  impuning the character and motivations of fellow members.

We all have a right and responsibility to judge  comments that impact the perception of CAP members, both internally and externally, especially when their premise is either based on a misunderstanding of how the universe works, or are simply wrong.

Then follow Pylon's advice and quit commenting.

If you're so offended by what he writes that you cannot help but comment, there is a second problem that only you can control.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on May 30, 2012, 02:43:51 PMIf you're so offended by what he writes that you cannot help but comment, there is a second problem that only you can control.

I'm not "offended" when people comment on things in an authoritative way that they know little to nothing about, but that doesn't mean that
comments which reflect negatively on me and my fellow members should simply go unchallenged.

Not everything in the world is personal, but that also doesn't mean we want this kind of stuff floating around the web with no one correcting the ideas.


"That Others May Zoom"

wuzafuzz

Quote from: Eclipse on May 30, 2012, 03:34:24 PM
Not everything i the world is personal, but that also doesn't mean we want this kind of stuff floating around the web with no one correct the ideas.
Bravo!  We should all do our best to represent CAP in a positive manner.  Since this isn't a private forum, misleading information and outright inaccuracies should be corrected. 

I suspect we would all have plenty to say if a news story unfairly trashed all CAP members based on inappropriate actions of a single member.  Why should it be any different when a CAPTalk member pulls a Walt Kowalksi and judges many CAP members based on his perceptions of the actions of a few? 

As for use of base facilities, I see no problem with CAP using facilities as permitted by AF rules or the base commander.  As long as we stay within that sandbox we are golden.  Heck, I've had more base access visiting my son at Camp Pendleton than I "enjoy" while on an AFB for an AFAM.  The apparent gnashing of teeth and hand wringing over the possibility of CAP members using facilities is nonsense.  No one is getting anything the proper authorities don't permit.  I wonder if this entire "issue" has more to do with someone's need to feel special than anything else.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

BrannG

RM, we don't see anything close to eye to eye, I am not posting for MY access to ANYTHING. I earned my right to access the BX, MWR, etc when I did two tours and got my knee nearly ripped off my leg. No, not worried about that. I don't exactly like your little "CAP IS NOT MILITARY ANYTHING" view point from hell.

Now, as I agree to a point, I will focus on this topic.

I am NOT saying CAP should get these, I am saying that it would be a nice "Thank you". Is it logical to have CAP members use the commissary? Most likely not, unless your in the case like I am, where it is closer than the 10 mile drive to the nearest grocery store. But I already have access to the base, so no, I do not see it as a "perk" for many.

QuoteThe problem with some CAP members is they live in a "fantasy world of military make believe" thinking they are contributing so much to AF operations that they are earning (entitled to) all these benefits.  This comes up time and time again in all of these posting threads.    My suggestion --  IF any member wants all those benefits than frankly go join the military and perform appropriate military duties to "earn" those benefits.

I have to agree with you that some members do have a complex on if they are in the military, we aren't - but your little "Military Dressup" comment is worth being slapped for. I was a line officer in the Air Force and the uniform was worn with PRIDE. The Air Force granted CAP the right to wear this uniform out of respect, honor and loyalty. That however is a different topic. The "benefits" handed to CAP about BX/MWR has nothing to do with uniforms or being military.

QuotePlaying 'military dress up' at a squadron meeting once a week doesn't even come close to approaching the level of those that have "earned" those benefits

Okay, here I have something to say. "Earned" benefits are things like, Military Medical Coverage (Tricare), Retirement Pay, VA - the biggest of which is the medical coverage. We are talking about the BX/MWR - the same places a civilian can use on base without any issues. I have a dear friend who is a civilian working at Wilford Hall Ambulatory Center as basically a file clerk. She can shop at the BX and use the MWR facilities all the time. MWF, like clock work I can find her at the Warhawk Gym. So we're not saying lets get Officer's Club benefits, or "hey, why can't CAP get Tricare".. THAT I would be pissed about..

That would be equal to saying "Hey, why can't CAP enroll in DEERS" and "Can my family get dependent IDs" haha! That's just.. wow. No. So get off your high horse, sit on a pole, rotate a little (I bet you'll like it) and look at the fact that we are talking about Senior Members who put in time and are active on the base, to use the BX. And Senior Members and Cadets the use of the Gym, so they have no excuse when wearing the AF Uniform, on why they are a fatty. :) (Not saying anything BAD about being overweight, just don't wear the AF Uniform..)



Lackland Cadet Squadron - SWR-TX-007 2012-Current
Kelly Composite Squadron - 42178 (Deactivated) 1994-2000
Cadet from 1994-1998
Senior Member from 1998-2000, 2012-Current
United States Air Force 2000-2006, 0-3

Ned

Quote from: BrannG on June 04, 2012, 04:00:20 PM
That would be equal to saying "Hey, why can't CAP enroll in DEERS" ( .  . .).

Actually, it makes a lot of sense to enroll CAP members in DEERS.  If we did that, we could greatly simplify things like access to AF-style uniforms (including the Free Cadet Uniform Program) by allowing members limited access to the aafes.com uniform store.

It would be a fairly straightforward IT project on the DoD side to create a new "limited privilege" category for us and it would save a lot of time and effort by AF personnel and CAP members by greatly reducing the need for base access.  That in turn saves time and effort in issuring visitors' permits, the usual confusion at clothing sales concerning privileges, etc.  Win-win.

It's the 21st century, neither the DoD nor we should be relying on printed ID cards and driving many miles to a brick-and-mortar clothing sales store.  Let electrons do the work for us.

(Yes, I know CAP members technically have telephonic access to MCSS, but it is has never been a practical work-around.)

Ned Lee
Futurist

BrannG

If this is going to turn in to a why CAP should be in DEERS, I would say I kinda agree, but not so much. I can see an Airman somewhere going "oh, your not red in DEERS so here's your CAC Card and print off a bloody Active Duty card..

I think yes, in some romantic future sci-fi scene I could see CAP going into Pass & ID for a USAF-AUX card that the Air Force itself issues. The card would help in so many areas, like ID issues at the gate, Following of AF standards, and giving clear limited benefits to CAP members.

Also, being in the DEERS system could also help the Air Force track our active, mission ready members, and help in communication between the Air Force and AUX members. In some way we are classified as Air Force Personnel, however remote and only when on an Air Force mission.

Like I said though, in some romantic future sci-fi scene. :P But yea, I see the logic in it.


Lackland Cadet Squadron - SWR-TX-007 2012-Current
Kelly Composite Squadron - 42178 (Deactivated) 1994-2000
Cadet from 1994-1998
Senior Member from 1998-2000, 2012-Current
United States Air Force 2000-2006, 0-3

AngelWings

Quote from: BrannG on June 04, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
If this is going to turn in to a why CAP should be in DEERS, I would say I kinda agree, but not so much. I can see an Airman somewhere going "oh, your not red in DEERS so here's your CAC Card and print off a bloody Active Duty card..

I think yes, in some romantic future sci-fi scene I could see CAP going into Pass & ID for a USAF-AUX card that the Air Force itself issues. The card would help in so many areas, like ID issues at the gate, Following of AF standards, and giving clear limited benefits to CAP members.

Also, being in the DEERS system could also help the Air Force track our active, mission ready members, and help in communication between the Air Force and AUX members. In some way we are classified as Air Force Personnel, however remote and only when on an Air Force mission.

Like I said though, in some romantic future sci-fi scene. :P But yea, I see the logic in it.
What I've been saying all along.