mission reimbursement questions travel to/from mission base.

[mynetdude]

This seems to be a hot topic for select members and myself in my squadron regarding the question concerning funded missions vs non funded missions and not getting reimbursements on funded missions and what the regulations has to say about that.

Noteworthy words to note: "may be reimbursed" (it doesn't say "must be reimbursed" or "have to be reimbursed" so I wanted to piont that out, as I am going to copy the email I sent to the member who seemed to make a 20 minute speech about how various things should be reimbursed not just fuel for individual members driving to mission base in their POVs however batteries that we use for the ISRs and VHF radios that we have to buy are supposedly reimbursable since they are a "communications" reimburseable item?

Anyway here is the email I sent off and along with that I attached the regulations:


From CAPR 60-3

3-4. USAF-Assigned Non-Reimbursable Training Missions for CAP Resources. USAF-assigned non-reimbursable training missions should be designed to provide training to improve the wing's ability to perform mission commitments identified in approved agreements and memorandums of understanding. These missions are intended to permit a wing (or region) to conduct additional training activities beyond those authorized for USAF reimbursement. Non-reimbursable training missions will be planned to accomplish specific training requirements. Specific training objectives must be reviewed and approved by the wing (or region) commander prior to requesting mission authorization.

We all know that USAF/AFAM (Air Force Approved Missions) are reimburseable for fuel costs... it so appears that there is such thing as USAF assigned non reimburseable missions (even though it is funded by the USAF, no reimbursements would be permitted it seems if the additional training activities beyond those authorized for USAF reimbursements).

So my question is: the last SAREX that just ended, was it USAF assigned? How would I know that? Typically a mission with 08MA is an actual USAF/AFAM reimburseable mission, mission numbers that start with 08T are reimburseable it seems as well??? Our last SAREX had 08T and every 07MA/08MA mission I have been on have been reimbursed without questions.


Note this:

From Chapter 7 (page 28)

e. The CAP may conduct peacetime civil disaster relief operations without an Air Force MD number. In such circumstances, federal benefits (e.g., FECA, FTCA, or USAF reimbursement) may not be provided to the CAP if there is no current MOU with the state that has been approved by CAP-USAF. Without an Air Force MD or an Air Force approved MOU with the state, the mission could be conducted without federal benefits as a corporate mission. The CAP wings should enter into agreements with their respective states for disaster/emergency relief. In accordance with chapter 5, such agreements should specifically address: mission authorization procedures, reimbursement policies and procedures, civil liability and worker's compensation coverage, and any other issues pertinent to state laws and CAP directives.

So now it appears according to this, since it would seem that the last SAREX we just completed was not a USAF funded TRAINING mission, as USAF does fund some training missions it would also seem that reimbursements are NOT required for non-USAF funded missions.  So again, what determines a funded mission??? Or when is it NOT funded?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be reimbursed, but if it isn't costing the wing anything... why should anyone miss out on the reimbursement?  I'm going to see what I can come up with at the CAP community forums and see what the folks there have to say.


I have just two questions: #1 how the heck do you determine if a mission is a AFAM/USAF mission that is NON funded?  and #2 I would presume that since "may be reimbursed" for USAF/AFAM funded missions... I would preclude that reimbursement is NOT required??? (though in my email I stated I have never had a problem obtaining reimbursement for USAF/AFAM funded missions.

I know that unfunded missions are obviously NOT reimbursable, it wouldn't make any logical sense if it was and wanted to point that out that I was aware of that.

The question seems to be... are all funded missions (SAREX and actuals) reimburseable?  With gas prices at nearly $3.50/gallon here and probably will be closer to $5/gallon by the time summer is over... that is literally costing me $12-$15/day every time I make a round trip to/from my unit's hangar/mission base.

Anybody have any thoughts/input on this along with their expertise if any?

Shannon M

Edit: 60-3 manual in PDF attached.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[TankerT]

I think you're reading in to this a bit too much.  The language was put there for a variety of reasons.  Some of the reasons for "may" allows CAP and the USAF to add their procedural items that say if you don't file your paperwork in X days, you don't get paid...etc...  But, if it is an AF Assigned Mission (funded training, or actual) you can be reimbursed.  If never been on a non-funded AF Mission.  I don't know if they exist.  (I have been on non-funded missions created by the Wing to allow for skills qualifications.  But, we all knew the status of that going in.)

In all honesty, in my 20 years in CAP, I have never been on an Air Force mission and not been reimbursed for allowed expenses. 

[isuhawkeye]

Here's the short, er....  possibly long  answer.  Each wing has a specific budget for mission training funds each year.  The amount of funds is determined by a complex matrix including number of IC's, mission pilots, Ground team leaders etc.  These funds get budgeted for the year.  Unfortunaitly these funds are never enough to acomplish all of your wing's training goals. 

We make up for this short fall by conducting FTX's, local mission training, and even larger scale training missions.  some states fund these missions through state funds, wing savings, squadron dues, or they may defer the cost to the member. 

When wings approach these "un funded" missions they are faced with the challange of insurance.  you can function under corporate insurance, possibly a state insurance, or air force insurance. 

The simple  truth is that any time you conduct any active operational training the project officer should ensure that the partisipating members are covered by the highest level of insurance. 

When ever you partisipate in a "non emergent"  mission you should get an operations plan, or briefing.  this briefing should include operational issues as well as finance procedures,  and it should be provided before the mission.

I apologize for the miss spellin.  I'm typing this on my phone

[Frenchie]

There have been instances when people in my squadron have been reimbursed for a SAREX.  For instance, if we're required to go to a remote mission base for the SAREX, then members can fill out a 108 and get reimbursed.

Another instance is the Low Level Route Surveys (LLRS) we are doing for the USAF military training routes.  If we have to do an overnight stay at a remote location to get some of the remote routes done, there is limited reimbursement available to stay overnight.

All of this has to be approved ahead of time.  You can't just take it upon yourself to do it and expect to get reimbursed just because you filled out a 108.  I wouldn't expect them to ever reimburse just to go to your local squadron for a SAREX, but I suppose it's up to the discretion of each squadron/group/wing.

[RiverAux]

About the only non-AF reimbursed, but AF approved, missions that I've ever seen are those planned and conducted by local squadrons. 

Now, just because a mission wasn't AF reimbursable, doesn't mean that the Wing or squadron (which level was in charge) couldn't reimburse individual members for fuel costs, etc. associated with the mission.  It just means that the unit will have to eat the cost themselves rather than passing the bill on to the AF. 

[mynetdude]

FWIW getting reimbursements is a privilage not a right although the FTC (Federal Torte Claims) for AFAM states that AFAM will have the option of communications and fuel/oil reimbursement for POVs to/from mission base and while in use on the mission.


there is a senior member in my squadron who thinks ALL "A" missions are reimburseable while "B" missions are not.

I have been on several SAREXs in the past year and never was denied reimbursement once.  Obviously state and corporate funded missions are different, of course the last SAREX we did everybody got a copy of the goals, training requirements, who the ICs were and who the trainees were and the fact that the training was for MS and MO only as there was no budget for ground training ops, it never said that reimbursements would not be honored to members traveling to/from mission bases. Although the fact that it says there was a limited budget was a good indicator.

My question is what determines a non refundable missions? Missions that are not funded, that have to be paid by the members is obviously a non reimbursable mission as well as "B" missions.

So now my question what are considered "A" and "B" missions?  I'm not complaining that there were no reimbursements, it wasn't stated "NO reimbursements" on the ops plan ever and if that is the case you can guarantee that I won't participate in training missions as long as gas prices stay above $2.50/gallon (we're at $3.50 now, definitely a killer meaning that I am limiting my travel to/from the hangar/base to at least twice a week any more than that I'm not willing to spend on it.

I just want to be clear on when I am authorized to get reimbursements so that when I look at the ops plan I can safely determine which type of mission it is even if it doesn't say clearly "no reimbursements authorized".

[FW]

I would think an easy way to figure out if the mission is reimbursable would be to check it out in WIMRS.  If funds are obligated for the mission, it is an AFA reimburseable mission.  If  not, it is an AFA non reimbursable mission.

[mynetdude]

hmm I have never looked at WIMIRS before... so I'm not sure I understand "obligated" funds.

I know how to get to WIMIRS (I think), I'm not stupid enough to go messing with it either but I'd like to be able to know what I'm looking at .

I'll check WIMIRS... thanks

One other noteworthy thing to point out though, I don't think you can check WIMIRS on a training SAREX/mission that hasn't even begun am I correct? Usually you can review it after the first day the mission has been active AFAIK.

[mynetdude]

I just tried WIMIRS... can't access it.

Only seems to be ICs and WG CC can access WIMIRS.

[FW]

I know the info is in WIMRS.  "Obligated Funds"  is the approved amount allowed for reimbursement or use in a mission.  To access WIMRS, you need to register on line. If you can't access the needed information, your squadron commander, IC or appropriate WSA (web security administrator) should be able to help.  If not, contact your State Director.  He definitely can tell you.

[mynetdude]

I know the info is in WIMRS.  "Obligated Funds"  is the approved amount allowed for reimbursement or use in a mission.  To access WIMRS, you need to register on line. If you can't access the needed information, your squadron commander, IC or appropriate WSA (web security administrator) should be able to help.  If not, contact your State Director.  He definitely can tell you.

Ah its no big thing really, I don't need access to WIMIRS unless I have a need to which I don't.  Like I said I haven't dealt with WIMIRS before, I know very little about it; that being said if the mission is non reimburseable then the obligated funds wouldn't be there of course or if the wing staff decides they'd rather not reimburse and use every ounce of funds to train as many MS/MOs then I would assume thats a possibility.

I don't have a problem with wanting to just train exclusively for MS/MO, however anytime you are going to send an aircraft out on a training mission/SAREX or actual mission you have to have a comm person and that comm person has to drive to wherever there is access to VHF radios unless he/she has one at home issued to him/her.

My point is, the ops plan didn't specifically state that no reimbursements would be authorized.  Whether or not the funds were obligated or not, thats another issue and frankly I don't care all I know is they have kicked themselves by doing it this way and I have participated in 4-5 days of the SAREX 2-3 of them I entered my vehicle into the IMU as the vehicle that would be getting the reimbursement until I got an email saying I couldn't do that so I didn't check my vehicle in for the last 2 days I participated that is still a total cost of approximately $60 for fuel for 4 days of SAREX participations, you bet I will say no to the next unfunded SAREX because of the last one wasn't specific about it and that is my only gripe.

[RiverAux]

There are two different things being discussed here:
1.  Whether the AF will reimburse Wing for costs of a mission.
2.  Whether Wing will reimburse individual members for their costs associated with the mission.

The answer to #1 should be found in the operations plan which should have the mission symbol under which the mission is conducted.  Check 60-1 and you will know whether or not the AF plans on reimbursing wing for the costs. 

The answer to #2 may or may not be found in the operations plan.  I don't know that I've ever seen it specificall described in them, but it is certainly up to Wing in every case on whether they're going to reimburse members for their expenses (whether or not the AF reimburses them).  For example, if on my own I decided to drive 300 miles to mission base in my POV for a SAREX and if I haven't gotten permission ahead of time, there is a chance that Wing may not reimburse me because they didn't include such costs in the operations plan and may not have the money to do so. 

[mynetdude]

There are two different things being discussed here:
1.  Whether the AF will reimburse Wing for costs of a mission.
2.  Whether Wing will reimburse individual members for their costs associated with the mission.

The answer to #1 should be found in the operations plan which should have the mission symbol under which the mission is conducted.  Check 60-1 and you will know whether or not the AF plans on reimbursing wing for the costs. 

The answer to #2 may or may not be found in the operations plan.  I don't know that I've ever seen it specificall described in them, but it is certainly up to Wing in every case on whether they're going to reimburse members for their expenses (whether or not the AF reimburses them).  For example, if on my own I decided to drive 300 miles to mission base in my POV for a SAREX and if I haven't gotten permission ahead of time, there is a chance that Wing may not reimburse me because they didn't include such costs in the operations plan and may not have the money to do so. 

Ok lets hypothetically say that #1 is true, AF will reimburse the cost of the mission in one instance would wing then go to #2 and reimburse the individual members?  Again, its not like the AF has decided to give $3,000 just for reimbursements, they will give you a set budget and if that budget doesn't cover the costs of reimbursements then I guess you are out of luck even on AFAM missions.

[Eagle400]

I have a question. 

If a CAP member travels a long distance (say, 300 miles) to participate in an AFAM, would the Air Force be able to pay for travel and lodging expenses?

I know that in the National Guard, if your unit is a long distance from your home and travel to and from is not feasible, they will reimburse you for travel and lodging expenses.

While CAP is not the National Guard, it is an instrumentality of the Air Force and serves the country in a capacity similar to that of the National Guard. 

[SJFedor]

Depends. If it's an actual, and the travel out there is justified, then yes, you can be reimbursed for certain expenses.

If it's a training exercise, you're only getting reimbursed if the travel to/from was a part of the OPLAN and considered part of the mission. Meaning that you were signed into the mission prior to departure from your home station and the transport inbound was part of the mission. Otherwise, no.

[Eagle400]

Depends. If it's an actual, and the travel out there is justified, then yes, you can be reimbursed for certain expenses.

Do you know what those expenses are, sir?

If it's a training exercise, you're only getting reimbursed if the travel to/from was a part of the OPLAN and considered part of the mission.

But if it's just a training exercise (SAREX, for example), then it's not an AFAM, right? 

Meaning that you were signed into the mission prior to departure from your home station and the transport inbound was part of the mission. Otherwise, no.

But only for training exercises, right?

[SJFedor]

Reference CAPR 173-3, Payment for Civil Air Patrol Support

1. General.
a. Disbursement of Federal appropriated funds for CAP may be used to furnish, pay or reimburse CAP for the following items (including taxes) while participating in an Air Force-assigned mission:

(text removed that doesn't apply)

(4) Mission travel, lodging and per diem expenses associated with the mission.

(a) Operational Missions. Overnight stays must be approved in advance through the National Operations Center (NOC) for all missions. In unique conditions (example: weather-related) where overnight stays have not been approved in advance, the mission base staff must contact the NOC duty officer to coordinate approval. Also, please keep in mind that the NOC can only coordinate approval of overnight stays during missions when a) safety requirements dictate and/or b) mission needs dictate and it is more cost effective for the overall mission to do so. Per diem (meals) will only be reimbursed in conjunction with overnight stays. CAP's exemption from the FAA allows private pilots to receive lodging and meals compensation only on Air Force-assigned missions.

(b) Training Missions. Overnight stays will not normally be authorized for training missions, except when safety needs dictate. Examples of when it can be approved include inclement weather preventing a safe return to home base or when necessary to avoid violating duty day requirements stated in CAPR 60-1. If it is necessary for members to stay overnight as part of a training mission, the state director and wing commander must both approve the request to be paid from the wing's Air Force training funds. In the unusual circumstance when the state director or wing commander cannot be reached, the incident commander or his/her staff can contact the NOC to coordinate approval.

(c) All Air Force Missions. When pre-approved by the NOC in accordance with 1a(4)(a) above, all authorized CAP personnel will be reimbursed per diem at a rate of $25 per day. Lodging rates will be reimbursed in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR). JFTR lodging rates can be obtained from the following website: (https://secureapp2.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/pdrates.html). Every effort should be made to stay within these rates. In very unusual circumstances where lodging cannot be obtained at any facility within the JFTR rates, additional approval must be obtained in advance from the NOC – otherwise the member will only be reimbursed up to the JFTR rate. Generally, anything that exceeds the JFTR rate by thirty percent or more will not be approved. If ground transportation is required, CAP vehicles should always be used if available. When a CAP vehicle is not available, the most cost effective option should be used whether it be a hotel shuttle, taxi, rental car etc.

b. Reimbursement from other organizations will be in accordance with the current memorandum of understanding (MOU) or letter of agreement (LOA) with that organization.

c. Absolute minimum acceptable documentation for reimbursement/payment of vouchers is that which is stated in this regulation.

Also, look at Attachment 3 in 173-3. I won't post it, but it tells you about it. Expenses can be reimbursed including fuel to, from, and during the mission, along with other stuff, as deemed necessary to carry out the mission.

Funded training exercises are typically AFAM training exercises, using the release symbol A5 for flight operations. Training missions that the Wing is paying for are typically Corporate missions. The funded exercises are AFAMs because the USAF approves it (via your state director and liason region) and all AFAM type things apply (FECA, FTCA, etc)

Meaning that you were signed into the mission prior to departure from your home station and the transport inbound was part of the mission. Otherwise, no.

But only for training exercises, right?

That statement applies to training missions. See above. Contact your Wing DO or DOS with questions, they can answer how they do things in their neck of the woods. For TN, if we know, say a GT is coming from Knoxville to Nashville (~3 hour drive), we'll write that transportation into our OPLAN and set aside part of the training mission budget for that to/from drive. They typically do this transport in a COV (unless the POV is written into the plan) and then submit a 108 at the end of the mission for vehicle reimbursement. The cost of their fuel to get TO the van, from wherever they live, however, is not part of the mission.

[RiverAux]

mynet and CCSE -- In all cases it is the wing that reimburses individual members.  Whether or not it is an AF reimbursed or non-reimbursed mission doesn't matter.  And, anytime you want to get reimbursed, you better make sure ahead of time that Wing will do so or you might end up SOL. 

[mynetdude]

Depends. If it's an actual, and the travel out there is justified, then yes, you can be reimbursed for certain expenses.

If it's a training exercise, you're only getting reimbursed if the travel to/from was a part of the OPLAN and considered part of the mission. Meaning that you were signed into the mission prior to departure from your home station and the transport inbound was part of the mission. Otherwise, no.

Hmm folks here view this differently, travel to/from mission base is never part of the ops plan.  If there were to be a safety issue for aircrews or travel via ground for ground crews then obviously they would postpone, reassign to another unit and/or turn the mission back over to the AF to decide who next should handle it.  It is my understanding that no one gets signed in to a mission until you arrive at mission base or your ops plan has a full understanding all personnel will travel from their home to the "scene" rather than mission base then in that theory you would sign in before departing.

[Eagle400]

mynet and CCSE -- In all cases it is the wing that reimburses individual members.  Whether or not it is an AF reimbursed or non-reimbursed mission doesn't matter.  And, anytime you want to get reimbursed, you better make sure ahead of time that Wing will do so or you might end up SOL.

So, for example the CAP personnel from CAWG who traveled out to Nevada to participate in the Fossett Search were reimbursed by CAWG and not the AF?

I don't have a problem with that, but it would seem like the Air Force has more money to spend on reimbursement for these types of things than CAP does. 

[mynetdude]

mynet and CCSE -- In all cases it is the wing that reimburses individual members.  Whether or not it is an AF reimbursed or non-reimbursed mission doesn't matter.  And, anytime you want to get reimbursed, you better make sure ahead of time that Wing will do so or you might end up SOL. 

So in other words, wing does NOT have to reimburse you even on an AF reimburseable mission?

This would make sense if it is non-reimbursed mission, who'd expect to get reimbursed on a non reimbursed mission?

So my question is again: Hypothetically speaking a particular AF funded SAREX mission which is reimburseable, can wing exclude reimbursements and only allow funds to be spent on a particular training item?

Most people live close enough to their squadrons, they don't care about getting reimbursed so that isn't an issue... this is an issue for people who live 60-70 miles (round trip) from mission base.  There is only one other member other than myself who live just as far and we are the only two who need fuel reimbursements to help offset the costs.

If the Ops plan calls for covering the costs of fuel for COV ground vehicles for communications, or UDF/GTs then thats fine I don't have a problem with that.  And besides, ORWG is eliminating comm vans completely from what I heard... so no more spending on mobile comm needs .

[mynetdude]

mynet and CCSE -- In all cases it is the wing that reimburses individual members.  Whether or not it is an AF reimbursed or non-reimbursed mission doesn't matter.  And, anytime you want to get reimbursed, you better make sure ahead of time that Wing will do so or you might end up SOL.

So, for example the CAP personnel from CAWG who traveled out to Nevada to participate in the Fossett Search were reimbursed by CAWG and not the AF?

I don't have a problem with that, but it would seem like the Air Force has more money to spend on reimbursement for these types of things than CAP does. 

While the WING does reimburse the individuals, I believe WING will request funds they had to disburse to the individuals for reimbursement.  That being said, the AF if approved they will reimburse the wing for the costs of reimbursing the individuals.

If wing doesn't do it on time, then that is their problem not ours.  Of course, if it is NOT a AF funded mission then it seems reimbursements do not apply.

[RiverAux]

So in other words, wing does NOT have to reimburse you even on an AF reimburseable mission?

Nope.  I've never had a problem, but then again I've never dropped a surprise $100 gas bill on their desk.  

This would make sense if it is non-reimbursed mission, who'd expect to get reimbursed on a non reimbursed mission?

Wing reimburses members for various CAP costs all the time.  Not unusual.  But, as I mentioned earlier I think it is rare for Wings to have non-AF reimbursed SAREXs.  However, say your squadron decided to get an AFAM for a local exercise.  The squadron certainly could reimburse members their gas costs if they wanted to.  Same thing at the wing level.  

So my question is again: Hypothetically speaking a particular AF funded SAREX mission which is reimburseable, can wing exclude reimbursements and only allow funds to be spent on a particular training item?

Yes.  Thats their job.  Ask ahead of time and you definetely won't have a problem unless their remaining training funds are very low.  

Hmm folks here view this differently, travel to/from mission base is never part of the ops plan.

Wanna bet?  Most every plane and vehicle has to get to the base somehow and those fuel costs are part of the overall budget for the event.  

It is my understanding that no one gets signed in to a mission until you arrive at mission base or your ops plan has a full understanding all personnel will travel from their home to the "scene" rather than mission base then in that theory you would sign in before departing.

No, you should be on the mission number before leaving base.  You may actually sign in at the base, but that sortie from your home unit to the mission base should be in WMIRS already and in some fashion the names of the people in the van should already be in the hands of someone at mission base before you leave.  Local practice would determine exactly how that is done.    

[SJFedor]

mynet and CCSE -- In all cases it is the wing that reimburses individual members.  Whether or not it is an AF reimbursed or non-reimbursed mission doesn't matter.  And, anytime you want to get reimbursed, you better make sure ahead of time that Wing will do so or you might end up SOL.

So, for example the CAP personnel from CAWG who traveled out to Nevada to participate in the Fossett Search were reimbursed by CAWG and not the AF?

I don't have a problem with that, but it would seem like the Air Force has more money to spend on reimbursement for these types of things than CAP does. 

The wording in the regulation is wrong. You give the 108 to Wing, who vectors it up channel to NHQ, who has the AF appropriated funds for training. They send the money back down to Wing, and Wing/HQ disburses the money that you are owed. Some wings will disburse funds prior to recieving them from NHQ, YMMV.

[mynetdude]

So in other words, wing does NOT have to reimburse you even on an AF reimburseable mission?

Nope.  I've never had a problem, but then again I've never dropped a surprise $100 gas bill on their desk. 

This would make sense if it is non-reimbursed mission, who'd expect to get reimbursed on a non reimbursed mission?

Wing reimburses members for various CAP costs all the time.  Not unusual.  But, as I mentioned earlier I think it is rare for Wings to have non-AF reimbursed SAREXs.  However, say your squadron decided to get an AFAM for a local exercise.  The squadron certainly could reimburse members their gas costs if they wanted to.  Same thing at the wing level. 

So my question is again: Hypothetically speaking a particular AF funded SAREX mission which is reimburseable, can wing exclude reimbursements and only allow funds to be spent on a particular training item?

Yes.  Thats their job.  Ask ahead of time and you definetely won't have a problem unless their remaining training funds are very low. 

Hmm folks here view this differently, travel to/from mission base is never part of the ops plan.

Wanna bet?  Most every plane and vehicle has to get to the base somehow and those fuel costs are part of the overall budget for the event. 

It is my understanding that no one gets signed in to a mission until you arrive at mission base or your ops plan has a full understanding all personnel will travel from their home to the "scene" rather than mission base then in that theory you would sign in before departing.

No, you should be on the mission number before leaving base.  You may actually sign in at the base, but that sortie from your home unit to the mission base should be in WMIRS already and in some fashion the names of the people in the van should already be in the hands of someone at mission base before you leave.  Local practice would determine exactly how that is done.   

Sure the ops plan makes provisions for fuel reimbursements for POVs but the travel portion is not... I am told that we are on our own in that regards when traveling to/from base and if the AF assigned mission has budgeted for reimbursements then we as an individual need to ask wing about it to make sure it is covered.

You also misunderstood what I said; yes I am aware that sorties hint... I never said sorties! Going from your home unit to the mission base thats another story... I am talking about travel from your RESIDENCE to mission base... usually this is NOT part of the ops plan (only fuel reimbursement provisions are documented, hopefully).

I don't give wing my $100 gas bills either, but they haven't set a "limit" either AFAIK I have not been told anyway.  I know that if I drive my bigger SUV its not going to be $15 round trip... it'll be closer to $20-$25 round trip and that can add up rather quickly per day.

I just received the ops plan for our next SAREX it doesn't show any fuel costs planning, it just shows that we'll be doing UDF mostly with cadets and seniors are welcome along with aircrews will be allowed to do training in the new G1000 aircraft.  Again it has no information about fuel reimbursements for individuals driving their POVs to mission base which I will find out on Tuesday anyway.

The most I have ever requested for AFAM actuals or training combined in a single month is $40 and that is a spread over several mission numbers and/or days.

[RiverAux]

I am told that we are on our own in that regards when traveling to/from base and if the AF assigned mission has budgeted for reimbursements then we as an individual need to ask wing about it to make sure it is covered.

So, you're wanting to know if you can get reimbursed for fuel from your house to the local squadron hq where you meet the ground team and jump in a COV to go the actual mission base? 

Probably not, though there is nothing in the regs preventing it, though you'd probably get laughed out of the room if you presented that bill.  Instead, I would recommend claiming the milage on your taxes next year. 

On several occassions I have traveled from my home to a mission base in another town for a mission in my POV by myself and been reimbursed for it. 

[mynetdude]

I am told that we are on our own in that regards when traveling to/from base and if the AF assigned mission has budgeted for reimbursements then we as an individual need to ask wing about it to make sure it is covered.

So, you're wanting to know if you can get reimbursed for fuel from your house to the local squadron hq where you meet the ground team and jump in a COV to go the actual mission base? 

Probably not, though there is nothing in the regs preventing it, though you'd probably get laughed out of the room if you presented that bill.  Instead, I would recommend claiming the milage on your taxes next year. 

On several occassions I have traveled from my home to a mission base in another town for a mission in my POV by myself and been reimbursed for it. 

If the bill is reasonable, at least my wing hasn't had a problem reimbursing individuals driving their POVs to mission base. The largest single receipt I have ever submitted is $17 for one vehicle round trip on a single mission #/day.

Obviously the wording in the regulations can be vauge, so at least I was right "may be" (at least from the above various posts) even on AFAM SAREX and actuals the missions are not required to be reimbursed if it were there would be wording saying "wing must reimburse individual fuel costs" if it were required.

[FW]

I've never had a problem with reimbursement for this type of travel.  All properly planned SAREX's should contain a budget line item for POV transportation to/from mission base on the CAPF 10.  COV's and Corp. Aircraft get reimbursed for such transport.  So do Member owned aircraft, when approved.

Of course, it never hurts to ask first.  Then, you can make an informed go/no go decsion.

[mynetdude]

I've never had a problem with reimbursement for this type of travel.  All properly planned SAREX's should contain a budget line item for POV transportation to/from mission base on the CAPF 10.  COV's and Corp. Aircraft get reimbursed for such transport.  So do Member owned aircraft, when approved.

Of course, it never hurts to ask first.  Then, you can make an informed go/no go decsion.

I'm not going to quote much from the PM, like I said before I've never thought to ask as I didn't need to before and several others have been involved longer than I have also said the same thing.  Sure I can understand if the wing is in a crunch, thats fine...

This was a properly planned SAREX I just don't get how they would just leave out POV reimbursements to/from mission base, I don't know how many people in our wing need POV fuel reimbursements however it couldn't have hurt setting aside $500.00 for fuel reimbursements ($200 from our home unit for two members including myself) and I have been on every single SAREX and actual missions I could possibly attend and never had ONE problem until now.

This isn't a big deal, and I'm not going to jump up and down with the big sign that says "Money Tree", just the fact of certain funds were left out now requires me to consider my participation in the future.

I for one in the future won't be surprised if somehow an AFAM mission has no reimbursements authorized...  I will just simply "not exist" anytime that is the case and they will live with that and I can accept that.

And like I said before they wanted to train MS/MOs so having as much finances for the training of MS/MOs was more important, I get that and I don't dispute it.

[Gunner C]

I've never had a problem with reimbursement for this type of travel.  All properly planned SAREX's should contain a budget line item for POV transportation to/from mission base on the CAPF 10.  COV's and Corp. Aircraft get reimbursed for such transport.  So do Member owned aircraft, when approved.

Of course, it never hurts to ask first.  Then, you can make an informed go/no go decsion.

I'm not going to quote much from the PM, like I said before I've never thought to ask as I didn't need to before and several others have been involved longer than I have also said the same thing.  Sure I can understand if the wing is in a crunch, thats fine...

This was a properly planned SAREX I just don't get how they would just leave out POV reimbursements to/from mission base, I don't know how many people in our wing need POV fuel reimbursements however it couldn't have hurt setting aside $500.00 for fuel reimbursements ($200 from our home unit for two members including myself) and I have been on every single SAREX and actual missions I could possibly attend and never had ONE problem until now.

This isn't a big deal, and I'm not going to jump up and down with the big sign that says "Money Tree", just the fact of certain funds were left out now requires me to consider my participation in the future.

I for one in the future won't be surprised if somehow an AFAM mission has no reimbursements authorized...  I will just simply "not exist" anytime that is the case and they will live with that and I can accept that.

And like I said before they wanted to train MS/MOs so having as much finances for the training of MS/MOs was more important, I get that and I don't dispute it.

Training funds are VERY tight.  We need to suck up the gas as much as we can.  Trainers can also optimize by decentralizing the training so it is closer to the members who need it.  That way you cut down on ferry time and vehicle fuel costs.

GC

[mynetdude]

I've never had a problem with reimbursement for this type of travel.  All properly planned SAREX's should contain a budget line item for POV transportation to/from mission base on the CAPF 10.  COV's and Corp. Aircraft get reimbursed for such transport.  So do Member owned aircraft, when approved.

Of course, it never hurts to ask first.  Then, you can make an informed go/no go decsion.

I'm not going to quote much from the PM, like I said before I've never thought to ask as I didn't need to before and several others have been involved longer than I have also said the same thing.  Sure I can understand if the wing is in a crunch, thats fine...

This was a properly planned SAREX I just don't get how they would just leave out POV reimbursements to/from mission base, I don't know how many people in our wing need POV fuel reimbursements however it couldn't have hurt setting aside $500.00 for fuel reimbursements ($200 from our home unit for two members including myself) and I have been on every single SAREX and actual missions I could possibly attend and never had ONE problem until now.

This isn't a big deal, and I'm not going to jump up and down with the big sign that says "Money Tree", just the fact of certain funds were left out now requires me to consider my participation in the future.

I for one in the future won't be surprised if somehow an AFAM mission has no reimbursements authorized...  I will just simply "not exist" anytime that is the case and they will live with that and I can accept that.

And like I said before they wanted to train MS/MOs so having as much finances for the training of MS/MOs was more important, I get that and I don't dispute it.

Training funds are VERY tight.  We need to suck up the gas as much as we can.  Trainers can also optimize by decentralizing the training so it is closer to the members who need it.  That way you cut down on ferry time and vehicle fuel costs.

GC

We don't really centralize our training, not that I can see anyway. Each squadron is able/capable of doing its own training as they see fit/need to. Wing will at times do SAREXs that most if not all squadrons can participate in (they have never excluded any squadrons that I am aware of) which allows squadrons to utilize training funds provided by wing.

Most of the SAREXs I have been on were wing supported/provided it seems, and were funded/reimburseable.  There are only 3 home units in my area closest one being 30 minutes away the one I go to is 45 minutes away and the furthest being on an air guard base is 2hrs away and very hard to get to during the winter months.  There doesn't seem to be much options for decentralizing here unfortunately and 45 minutes of travel time is not really a factor I'd consider. 

[Larry Mangum]

If it is an AFAM and it is an "A" mission and your POV is signed in to the mission, then the fuel and oil consumed in getting to and from the mission are covered as long as it is reasonable. By that I mean if you drive 20 miles to the mission and 20 miles home, then it would be reasonable to pay for a couple of gallons of gas, however if you want me as an IC to approve a CAPF 108 for 18 gallons or so, I am going to question it, if the vehicle was only used to arrive and depart.  AFAM missions that are "B" missions are Air Force mission that are non-funded and expenses are never paid.

If it is a FUNDED SAREX ("A" Mission") versus an UNFUNDED SAREX (Corporate Mission), and you sign your POV, again it should be reimbursable. 

On a side note, a little known fact is that on a real world mission for AFRCC or for AFNSEP, it is possible to get per diem authorized as long as it is done up front and it would be more cost effective for the Air Force to put people up then it would be to fly the aircraft home every night.  The same is probably true for ground teams

[mynetdude]

If it is an AFAM and it is an "A" mission and your POV is signed in to the mission, then the fuel and oil consumed in getting to and from the mission are covered as long as it is reasonable. By that I mean if you drive 20 miles to the mission and 20 miles home, then it would be reasonable to pay for a couple of gallons of gas, however if you want me as an IC to approve a CAPF 108 for 18 gallons or so, I am going to question it, if the vehicle was only used to arrive and depart.  AFAM missions that are "B" missions are Air Force mission that are non-funded and expenses are never paid.

If it is a FUNDED SAREX ("A" Mission") versus an UNFUNDED SAREX (Corporate Mission), and you sign your POV, again it should be reimbursable. 

On a side note, a little known fact is that on a real world mission for AFRCC or for AFNSEP, it is possible to get per diem authorized as long as it is done up front and it would be more cost effective for the Air Force to put people up then it would be to fly the aircraft home every night.  The same is probably true for ground teams

Yeah it would be nice if the Ops plan indicated what type of mission it was, corporate or AFAM rather than it saying funding is only for MS/MO.  Granted if it was a corporate unfunded mission then thats fine I just would like to know that.

I have never charged for more than 6 gallons of fuel depending which vehicle I am driving. The average receipt usually has 3-5 gallons of fuel charged on a single receipt.

overnight stays is another topic, and this is rare that even happens and I can recall only once did our aircrews get stuck overnight at the ICP because the IC wouldn't let the plane return back to its home unit so of course the aicrews ended up spending their own money on hotel costs because it was not part of the ops plan nor was it even considered.  Had it been an actual mission, even if you could get reimbursed for one overnight stay the reimbursement only gives you up to $25 and most hotel costs are $70+

[mikeylikey]

^ I love CAP, I hate spending money.  I understand performing our missions may cost the individual some personal expenses, but when you have to rack up hotel costs, that is where I draw the line.  My services are available as long as my GAS is reimbursed and or they have a place for me to sleep if I have to stay overnight. 

With GAS most likely going to $5.00 before summers out, I along with many others will seriously be rethinking our service to CAP.  I can live with spending near 10-15 bucks per week to get to and from the weekly meeting and an occasional activity, but when it begins approaching $300.00 to go to the Wing HQ for a weekend sarex or SLS or CLC (not counting GAS) that is a NO-GO in my book.  I may get reimbursed for GAS, but to get a hotel room for 2 nights, plus food and add in the highway tolls, it is not worth it.  Sorry, I would love to partake in these things, but I also need to prepare my financial future now when I am young, so I don't have to work until I am 90. 

Man, I could start a whole new thread on the "real" costs of being a CAP member!  Things like what it does to family members, personal finances, friendships etc.

[mynetdude]

^ I love CAP, I hate spending money.  I understand performing our missions may cost the individual some personal expenses, but when you have to rack up hotel costs, that is where I draw the line.  My services are available as long as my GAS is reimbursed and or they have a place for me to sleep if I have to stay overnight. 

With GAS most likely going to $5.00 before summers out, I along with many others will seriously be rethinking our service to CAP.  I can live with spending near 10-15 bucks per week to get to and from the weekly meeting and an occasional activity, but when it begins approaching $300.00 to go to the Wing HQ for a weekend sarex or SLS or CLC (not counting GAS) that is a NO-GO in my book.  I may get reimbursed for GAS, but to get a hotel room for 2 nights, plus food and add in the highway tolls, it is not worth it.  Sorry, I would love to partake in these things, but I also need to prepare my financial future now when I am young, so I don't have to work until I am 90. 

Man, I could start a whole new thread on the "real" costs of being a CAP member!  Things like what it does to family members, personal finances, friendships etc.

I heard being a squadron and wing commander are probably the most expensive "positions" to be in.  My squadron commander spent over $2,000 in transportation, lodging, conferences and such in the course of almost a full year.  That is a lot of money roughly $166.00/month however I know he pays more than that if he is going to planning and ops meetings held by wing.

[mikeylikey]

^ Thats a shame.  Some people can not afford that outright. 

[Al Sayre]

Yep, welcome to my world... I just did my taxes, and claimed just shy of 12000 (yes that's correct, twelve thousand) documented un-reimbursed miles for CAP.

As an IC, I put money for corporate vehicles in the Ops Plan.  If you want to fill up the Squadron Van with people and come to the SAR-EX I will happily approve it.  Most people can afford to drive to and from their squadron.  

I won't approve individual vehicles that have no valid "mission usage" other than hauling their owners to the SAR-EX.  On the rare occasion if someone is "Mission Essential" I might consider it on a case by case basis, or possibly if a squadron member loads up their own van with people or equipment with prior permission.  

The reality is we simply don't have the money in the training budget to pay for everyone's individual mileage even on Air Force Assigned Training Missions.  Our Wing does about 8 SAREX's a year.  If we paid everyones fuel to drive individually, we could afford 2 or 3 at best.

[mynetdude]

Yep, welcome to my world... I just did my taxes, and claimed just shy of 12000 (yes that's correct, twelve thousand) documented un-reimbursed miles for CAP.

As an IC, I put money for corporate vehicles in the Ops Plan.  If you want to fill up the Squadron Van with people and come to the SAR-EX I will happily approve it.  Most people can afford to drive to and from their squadron. 

I won't approve individual vehicles that have no valid "mission usage" other than hauling their owners to the SAR-EX.  On the rare occasion if someone is "Mission Essential" I might consider it on a case by case basis, or possibly if a squadron member loads up their own van with people or equipment with prior permission. 

The reality is we simply don't have the money in the training budget to pay for everyone's individual mileage even on Air Force Assigned Training Missions.  Our Wing does about 8 SAREX's a year.  If we paid everyones fuel to drive individually, we could afford 2 or 3 at best.

I agree, except that most people who live within 5-10 minutes of mission base a lot of times those are the majority of the members at least for us.  fuel reimbursement is really worth it if A) you are taking a COV to the mission base itself from the home unit or B) the individual has to drive 50+ miles from home to mission base which is roughly 3-5 gallons of fuel costing them $10-$15 for each time they do that round trip.  Those piddly $1-$5 reimbursements aren't worth it IMHO.

And yes I am aware I can deduct my milage on my taxes too but thats .14 cents a mile??? I might as well forget it.

[Al Sayre]

$ 0.14 is better than nothing.  If 50 people show up for the SAREX and every one turns in a $20.00 gas ticket, that's $1000.  MSWG is on the consolidated maintenance plan, so the average SAREX costs about $2500 x 8 for a total annual budget of around $20,000 for AFAM Training.  now take $8000 of that away for auto fuel and we are down to $12000, and limited to 5 or six SAREX's at best.  That's before removing any money for other training such as Check Pilot Schools, Form 5/Form 91 flights etc.  The price of avgas is going up just as fast as car gas, and has already eaten away at least 1 planned SAREX for this FY... 

What do you suggest that we as IC's do?

[jimmydeanno]

What do you suggest that we as IC's do?

Lobby to get NHQ to increase the funding so we stop giving money back every year.  From what I understand there is usually about 1 million that is "turned back in" from the appropriated funds we're given.  That's 20K per wing...

[Al Sayre]

The reason most of the money gets turned back is because missions haven't been getting closed in a timely manner.  The NOC now gives us 30 days to close missions, training or actual, or the Wing eats it until the end of the year and will get reimbursed IF there are any funds remaining.

Here's how it works:

Each wing is give a budget amount at the beginning of the fiscal year.  When a training mission is requested in WIMRS, an estimated amount for the activity is deducted from the budget and "locked up" until the mission number closes.  Then any remaing funds are released back to (or deducted from) the Wing Budget. 

If you have missions in your wing that don't get closed in time to reallocate and spend the funds either within the Wing, Region, or Nationally before the end of the fiscal year any remaining funds get "turned back" when the accounts are settled.  This is one of the main reasons all training stops around the 1st of September. 

Our current target is to close all missions in WIMRS within 7 days, 14 days max, so we can try and not have available funds go to waste, and also not have the Wing eat missions that the USAF should be paying for.

[mynetdude]

What do you suggest that we as IC's do?

Lobby to get NHQ to increase the funding so we stop giving money back every year.  From what I understand there is usually about 1 million that is "turned back in" from the appropriated funds we're given.  That's 20K per wing...

Thats another thing... I don't understand why are we giving money back??? Great if you don't spend it all, you can use it for next year or for the rest of the year for other unexpected needs that may not exactly pertain to training.

If we end up saving the funds and not giving it back, we could have encampments that could provide other kinds of training that require a budget or heck make the encampments cheaper by subsidizing them! I think its silly to have to give back any unused appropriated funds. Or use the appropriated funds to build wing specific programs or other unique support the wing needs maybe...

[Al Sayre]

Because we are using the taxpayers money.  A given amount is appropriated for use in a specific program in a given fiscal year.  If we don't use it for what it was intended, we must return the funds to the taxpayers from whom they were appropriated. 

It also prevents Wings from saying "well if we cancel half the SAREX's this year and next year, we can put up a nice new Wing Headquartes building or buying all of the Wing Staff new Mess Dress Uniforms etc. 

[mikeylikey]

^ And don't forget NHQ tracks what monies Wings and Regions return and you better bet the following years money to the State or Region will be "corrected" to the amount of the prior year minus (-) the amount returned.  I have seen it happen with O-flight money.  Wing gives back the money, and everyone is shocked that we received less the next FY.

[RiverAux]

Yeah it would be nice if the Ops plan indicated what type of mission it was, corporate or AFAM rather than it saying funding is only for MS/MO.  Granted if it was a corporate unfunded mission then thats fine I just would like to know that.

Every operational plan I've seen in the last years has indicated the mission symbol, which tells you all you need to know.  If your wing isn't including it, you need to get on their case. 

[mynetdude]

Yeah it would be nice if the Ops plan indicated what type of mission it was, corporate or AFAM rather than it saying funding is only for MS/MO.  Granted if it was a corporate unfunded mission then thats fine I just would like to know that.

Every operational plan I've seen in the last years has indicated the mission symbol, which tells you all you need to know.  If your wing isn't including it, you need to get on their case. 

Or maybe I am not seeing THEIR version of the ops plan, I will ask to see it for the next ops planning no guarantees I will get to see it anyhow... it would pertain to OPSEC... only those who have a need to know about it would be able to see it.

[Al Sayre]

OPSEC?  There's nothing secret or special in most ops plans and certainly not for SAREX training.  If you have WIMRS access, you can view the OPs plan, it's a linked PDF that can be found at the top of the page.

It's really no big deal.  Generally, it states WHO is in charge, WHAT you plan to do, WHERE you plan to do it, WHEN you plan to do it and HOW MUCH will it cost.  The mission status and mission symbol are on the main WIMRS page, not the ops plan, since they are assigned after the ops plan is issued.

[FW]

^ And don't forget NHQ tracks what monies Wings and Regions return and you better bet the following years money to the State or Region will be "corrected" to the amount of the prior year minus (-) the amount returned.  I have seen it happen with O-flight money.  Wing gives back the money, and everyone is shocked that we received less the next FY.

This is very true.  It's most important to use ALL the money budgeted to your wing for training.  Some wings get reduced 10-15% in the next FY.  CAP must use all its grant.  Excess is turned back to the govt.  So, any money turned back from wings is used for other purposes like purchasing more radios, upgrading Archer, etc.

BTW, dont' be afraid to spend the money early.  Regions usually have a reserve and can ask for more from national if things get tight.  IMHO, it's much more important to train than
not.  And, if this means being reimbursed to get to base, so be it.

Oh, BTW, for real missions, we haven't run out of cash yet  , so you shouldn't have to worry about reimbursement either.

[mynetdude]

^ And don't forget NHQ tracks what monies Wings and Regions return and you better bet the following years money to the State or Region will be "corrected" to the amount of the prior year minus (-) the amount returned.  I have seen it happen with O-flight money.  Wing gives back the money, and everyone is shocked that we received less the next FY.

This is very true.  It's most important to use ALL the money budgeted to your wing for training.  Some wings get reduced 10-15% in the next FY.  CAP must use all its grant.  Excess is turned back to the govt.  So, any money turned back from wings is used for other purposes like purchasing more radios, upgrading Archer, etc.

BTW, dont' be afraid to spend the money early.  Regions usually have a reserve and can ask for more from national if things get tight.  IMHO, it's much more important to train than
not.  And, if this means being reimbursed to get to base, so be it.

Oh, BTW, for real missions, we haven't run out of cash yet  , so you shouldn't have to worry about reimbursement either.

Well TBH I don't see how the USAF could even run out of cash... our government makes its own cash for itself... j/k.

[isuhawkeye]

I know we've talked about this before, but ill bring it up here too.

AFRCC does not fund anyones operations. afrcc tasks many different agencies, and aske that they work out funding based upon MOU's

What we consider afrcc reimbursments actually comes from our original appropriation.  That money is budgeted by cap for .....

A missions
training missions
O rides

sorry to interupt

[mynetdude]

^ I don't consider that an interruption, just a simple layman's terms of the whole thread.


Now I'll get ya'll be interested to see what I have to say now.  We just had our planning meeting for the May SAREX and I am just appalled at how wing handles ops plans from the units and such forth not that there is anything wrong with it but these people are getting in way over their heads.

We are hoping to do a fairly large SAREX involving 6 planes in a local area of not more than 50-80 miles from my home unit.  Sure I've seen SAREXs with 7-12 air sorties but all spread out across the state, we're talking about in a local area where we'll have so many sorties (including ground sorties).

The commander and his advisor were making a point that ORWG wants them to do it one way while our guys are trying to do it by regs and there seems to be a "problem" with the ops plan "format".   So of course, naturally I brought up WIMIRS and the commander said "oh we don't do our ops plan on WIMIRS we do our own" (so yeah I rolled my eyes on this one).

However I do know our SAREX for April and May are both "A" funded. I don't know if WIMIRS would show that or not since everybody has their own way of doing an ops plan.

[RiverAux]

Other than inputting some basic data about the event and uploading a PDF of the op-plan, you don't really use WMIRS as a planning tool. 

[Major Carrales]

As I see it, the money needs to be used to accomplish the mission while at the mission.  If you use your personal vehicle on the mission, you should get reimbursed.

However, travel to and from SARex activity is beyond the scope of that.  Units I have visited for a SARex have set up a floor or sleeping bags or other lodging involving cots.  One member once submitted a very pricy 108 that involved lots of gas, an overnight stay in a more than adequate hotel (notice not MOTEL).  As I was informed, it was rejected.

I, for one, never ask for money when goingto the SARex.  It seems like a sacrifice I will make instead of the TAXPAYERS.  Normally we CARPOOL and split expenses.

With the distances I travel to DSARexs, and the price of gas I "consume" these days, they could pay for another hour of flying.  Call me crazy or fiscally conservative; have it your way.

[mynetdude]

As I see it, the money needs to be used to accomplish the mission while at the mission.  If you use your personal vehicle on the mission, you should get reimbursed.

However, travel to and from SARex activity is beyond the scope of that.  Units I have visited for a SARex have set up a floor or sleeping bags or other lodging involving cots.  One member once submitted a very pricy 108 that involved lots of gas, an overnight stay in a more than adequate hotel (notice not MOTEL).  As I was informed, it was rejected.

I, for one, never ask for money when goingto the SARex.  It seems like a sacrifice I will make instead of the TAXPAYERS.  Normally we CARPOOL and split expenses.

With the distances I travel to DSARexs, and the price of gas I "consume" these days, they could pay for another hour of flying.  Call me crazy or fiscally conservative; have it your way.

Well TBH with you, its either or I don't mind paying for one or the other. If they want to pay for lodging or provide it free then I'll pay for the fuel or if they pay for the fuel then I have no problem paying for lodging.

HOWEVER most if not all SAREXs I go on, I never have to spend the night because I live close enough.  And again, if I went ONCE to a SAREX I could care less about reimbursement its only $15 round trip.  If I had to go 3-4 times a week during the course of 4 weeks I'd like at least 3/4 of that reimbursed since I don't need lodging for local SAREXs anyway.

In May there is a SAREX they are providing lodging I could stay there and depending on whether there is enough SM staff I may end up staying with them and then I can reduce the cost of my fuel as I will stay at the lodging where the cadets will be staying rather than having to pay $30, it will only be $15 since I would not need to make a 2nd round trip.

[mynetdude]

^ I don't consider that an interruption, just a simple layman's terms of the whole thread.


Now I'll get ya'll be interested to see what I have to say now.  We just had our planning meeting for the May SAREX and I am just appalled at how wing handles ops plans from the units and such forth not that there is anything wrong with it but these people are getting in way over their heads.

We are hoping to do a fairly large SAREX involving 6 planes in a local area of not more than 50-80 miles from my home unit.  Sure I've seen SAREXs with 7-12 air sorties but all spread out across the state, we're talking about in a local area where we'll have so many sorties (including ground sorties).

The commander and his advisor were making a point that ORWG wants them to do it one way while our guys are trying to do it by regs and there seems to be a "problem" with the ops plan "format".   So of course, naturally I brought up WIMIRS and the commander said "oh we don't do our ops plan on WIMIRS we do our own" (so yeah I rolled my eyes on this one).

However I do know our SAREX for April and May are both "A" funded. I don't know if WIMIRS would show that or not since everybody has their own way of doing an ops plan.

This is to inform the CAPTalk forum and my superiors at the squadron, wing and region echelons my public apology, especially to my commander and his advisor.

First I'd like to acknowledge the above post/comments were not appropriate and implies I called the said persons a liar even though that was not my intent.  I could and should have reworded it properly to not imply anyone was wrong or a liar and secondly information that I received from such meetings should not have been disclosed according to OPSEC requirements.

Secondly, I realize such comments as these are offensive to the persons implicated and involved; it was not my intent to offend or cause harm to such persons.  As I've said before I try my best to improve my personna even though being who you are is what you are and doesn't mean you can't improve upon it.

I try my best to state the facts acurately, or exclude the facts or partial facts that I have no concrete knowledge or understanding of which may include facts that are to be only given to those with a need to know.

I also want to thank whomever reported this post/comment to the proper echelon, this does not change the fact there are consequences of my actions verbally, written or physically. That being said, I fully accept responsibility of my actions and the resulting consequence of promotion to 1Lt being held for 90 days with no further corrective actions being taken between now and the next time I become eligible for promotion.

I will be extremely limiting my posting and involvement in various duty positions and/or events involving OPSEC requirements so that I am not oblidged with severe responsibilities and risks that come with said event/duty position.

Thank you for your time in reading my apology and for your support in CAP.

Shannon M

[mikeylikey]

^ One reason I do not post who I am.  I am sorry about your idiotic CoC holding your promotion.  It is not warranted. 

I would also like to remind everyone reading this, that there have been individuals sued civilly by people because of what they have posted on CAPTALK.  It is terrible that we can not even post our sincerest feelings without threat of civil suit or worse. 

I hope you will continue to post here.  So did your CoC say that they want to see everything you post from now on?  Idiots....... lets see them hold up my promotions now. 

[mynetdude]

^ One reason I do not post who I am.  I am sorry about your idiotic CoC holding your promotion.  It is not warranted. 

I would also like to remind everyone reading this, that there have been individuals sued civilly by people because of what they have posted on CAPTALK.  It is terrible that we can not even post our sincerest feelings without threat of civil suit or worse. 

I hope you will continue to post here.  So did your CoC say that they want to see everything you post from now on?  Idiots....... lets see them hold up my promotions now. 

Haha no, that'd be a privacy violation I hope

Thats exactly why I recently removed my signature I see now why too 

[isuhawkeye]

just because your signature is not present, don't assume people dont know who you are

[mynetdude]

just because your signature is not present, don't assume people dont know who you are

Never said that, there are plenty who already know however I am sure some will forget and anyone in the future will not have a clue unless told otherwise.