The Chief's Corner

[Chief Chiafos]

I have been chastised, and properly so, for harshness with Lordmonar - My apologies to him.  Over the years the Air Force has tried to minimize the NCO, filling many NCO positions with officers, and selling the NCO as nothing more than a manager.  The current war has exposed flaw after flaw in that thinking, and now the Air Force is in full correction mode, even changing the basic training format.  While managers are necessary, NCOs are vital.

CAP is not the Air Force, I understand that.  And the NCO Corps is not a silver bullet.  And yes, there are marginal NCOs, and, in OSI I had the unpleasent duty of firing more than one Master Sergeant who could not get the job done.

I also know that many good members of this organization have been lied to, cheated, and had the living crap kicked out of them - yet, somehow, they cling to the hope that something better is coming.  The dismay, frustration, and resentment I see on this website speaks volumes about how CAP is a dismal failure; failure to lead, failure to train, failure - time after time - to simply do the right thing.

My question to you is: Do we just shrug our sholders and take it?  Or do we follow a vision, and transform ourselves and CAP into an organization that people stand in line to join?  Together, we can do just that.

NCOs, as in the services, will be assigned to a unit commander. The NCO will serve that commander by training, teaching, and mentoring the units members with professional military education.  The NCO, however, will be held accountable for his conduct and actions by Senior NCOs simply because if we ever get sucked into the politics and pettiness of CAP's business as usuall attitude - it will all collapse, and other good effort will be chucked into the trash can.

An NCO who has to "order" people about is no NCO, and will soon find him (her) self busted to FO and looking for something else to do.  Our authority is moral leadership by example.  And nothing and no one will be allowed to compromise that.  People follow because they want to be lead, they will follow NCOs only so long as its the right thing to do.

This isn't rocket science here, it's a matter of leadership, and the NCO Corps is a good way to get started.  If you don't think so, then tell me your plans - I'd love to hear them.

[flyguy06]

...He's on the advisory group along with the National Safety Officer, AE Advisor Cadet Program advisor  EEO Officer and other people you never hear about .

Nobody has a way with words the way Flyguy does.      

;DI can get away with it because I am a young Senior Member and folks probably dont take me seriously anyway and I a mcute too

[flyguy06]

Lordmonar, I prefered to email you, but its hidden.  If you keep thinking the way you do will never make E-8, let alone E-9.  In my time a Staff Sergeant could terrorize a second lieutenant at will.  The fact that you, as a Master Sergeant, seem to lack that skill is not a good reflection on your leadership, perhaps you need to re-visit some NCO courses.  If you, of all people, cannot see an NCO role in CAP, then I must conclude: although you may wear an NCOs stripes, you have probably never really been one.

"...terrorize a second lieutenant at will...?"

Chief, if this is your plan and attitude, well good luck with that.

Easy onhim. Its just a figure of speech. A metephore if you will

[DNall]

Nobody has a way with words the way Flyguy does.      

;DI can get away with it because I am a young Senior Member and folks probably dont take me seriously anyway and I a mcute too

Easy onhim. Its just a figure of speech. A metephore if you will

You been drankin tonight son (flashlight in eyes), cause that was some troubled typing you just did there. Happy new year!

[DNall]

An NCO who has to "order" people about is no NCO, and will soon find him (her) self busted to FO and looking for something else to do.  Our authority is moral leadership by example.  And nothing and no one will be allowed to compromise that.  People follow because they want to be lead, they will follow NCOs only so long as its the right thing to do.

Chief I couldn't agree with that statement more - FOs are 18-21 only by the way.

You know a good leader though comes to his people and asks them for the opportunity to share his vision, explains it in detail, allows input/shaping so subordinates take ownership, then finally ASKS them to follow him down that road. Chief I want to see that vision. I want the Nat CC to stand before the membership (figuratively) & tell us exactly what he wants CAP to be & how he intends for us to get there as a team, to provide an input conduit for members & faith it's being addressed (apparently that's part of your job description), I want him to stand up knowing it'll cost members on one side or the other (who will be replaced just as quick)... I want to see some bold leadership rather than political CYA BS that's torn this org down over the last 20 years. Chief I want to see that from leadership slots or I want those people to stand aside & let someone else take charge.

Chief I'd also agree that CAP hasn't been held to the standard we're being judged against by the outside world & that won't last forever. There's people running for President (on both sides) with pretty strong positions on CAP. Congress isn't at all happy with the 2000 changes but is split on what to do & our members wouldn't like some of those options. I think it's 2-3 years we have to show significant progress down the road of transformation or we're in fairly serious danger of letting this die on our watch. I hate to doom & gloom this one chief. I just feel the stakes and dangers are higher than people understand & the time frame is not unlimited as it has been. I really want to see CAP leadership take ownership of these problems & sell membership on a plan for the future, & I don't mean some flower BS that no one could disagree with.

[JohnKachenmeister]

"Drunken paranoid schizophrenic..."

I like that!

Chief:

I am one of the few RLO's in CAP, and I know the value of skilled, dedicated NCO's both in mentoring junior officers, and leading junior enlisted, which in our case is a bunch of teen and pre-teen cadets.*

I'm sure you once had to memorize the Principles of Leadership, one of which is "Keep your men informed."**  From what you have told us, the General wants to place us back as an integral part of the Air Force, where is where we once were and where we should be.  Some of the General's actions have been interpreted by folks as having the opposite intent.

My hope is that we can get the sheet music before all of us out in the orchestra have to play the symphony.

*  Special note to the anal purists out there, yes, I KNOW some cadets are 20.  I was generalizing.

**  Note to the political correctness nazis, yes, I know I said "Men" and there are women out there too.  Deal with it, that's the way I learned it.  I went to OCS before women were discovered.

[Chaplaindon]

Just what the world needs, another terrorizer (albeit a terrorizer of junior officers) -

--NOT!!

... CAP needs leaders with vision, values and virtues and not terror-izers.

The verb "terrorize" and its related noun "terrorist" call to mind the vilest and most evil members of the human race and their cruel and heartless actions -- ESPECIALLY post-9/11. It brings to mind IEDs, carbombs, suicide bombs and bombers, and B767's converted to guided missiles all to ostensibly change the world order.

If a CAP member --cadet, officer or NCO-- cannot LEAD other VOLUNTEERS without seeking to inflict or promote fear (let alone --heaven forbid-- "terror"), they have no business in the Organization OR decent human society.

Shame on you Chief for your ill-thought choice of words. I pray that it was only a "slip of the keyboard."

[MIKE]

If ALL parties involved in this discussion cannot control the tone/content of their posts... Action will be taken.  I've already let a number of 'em slip by as it is.

Membership Code of Conduct

[Monty]

I think the thing that shocks me the most about this thread is the blatant example of CAP's split personality from several people:

-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces

I've seen things said from many folks that would absolutely earn a slice of "wall-to-wall" counseling if there ever was a need for such a thing.

One of these days, I outta finger somebody out and say, "knock it the heck off, XXXX - you are acting 100% counter to all that hot air you blow about being hardcore......"

Watch the squirming that would coincide...

[BlueLakes1]

The statement about reciting the Pledge caught my attention because it is something that is done regularly at most every CAP meeting I have been to.    So, I decided to go to the source and look it up in the regs.  CAPP 151 has the following:

(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should remove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)

So, if you're inside in a meeting you can say the pledge even if in uniform unless you're lined up on a drill floor in formation.  

One of our other Group CCs recently pointed out that CAPP 151 actually contradicts the US Flag Code.

TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

(Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1494;
amended Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(a), Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060.)

I'd have to think that the USC trumps a CAP pamphlet, and we've instructed our members to remain silent.

[RiverAux]

The Air Force regulations back this up:

2.18. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all should be rendered by standing at attention and facing the flag. When not in uniform, persons should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, with the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute if outdoors and indoors if in formation and wearing appropriate headdress. If indoors and without headdress, military members should stand at attention, remain silent, and face the flag. Military members in uniform do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

However, what needs to be done is change the CAP regulation.  Now, if this was done would it effectively outlaw saying the Pledge at a CAP activity?  After all, who would be leading and saying the pledge if everybody else is standing silent?  Just the people in civies or CAP uniform?  The AF reg doesn't give any guidance to non-formation pledges of allegience, which is how I've usually seen it done. 

[arajca]

However, what needs to be done is change the CAP regulation.  Now, if this was done would it effectively outlaw saying the Pledge at a CAP activity?  After all, who would be leading and saying the pledge if everybody else is standing silent?  Just the people in civies or CAP uniform?  The AF reg doesn't give any guidance to non-formation pledges of allegience, which is how I've usually seen it done.

Actually, the federal law wouldn't allow members wearing a CAP uniform to recite the pledge either.

Quote from: 4 USC 1
TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

It does not say military uniform. It just says uniform. Therefore, CAP members in uniform would not recite the pledge.

[lordmonar]

The reason why military personnel remain silent during the pledge of allegiance is that they have taken a higher pledge.  The oaths of enlistment and commission supersede the pledge of allegiance.  CAP members (as CAP members) don't take those oaths and therefore should say the pledge.  The USC when it says "persons in uniform" does it mean any uniform or does it assume military personnel in uniform.  Because I would hate to see the guy in his Mc Donald's uniform not saying the pledge.

[Chappie]

The statement about reciting the Pledge caught my attention because it is something that is done regularly at most every CAP meeting I have been to.    So, I decided to go to the source and look it up in the regs.  CAPP 151 has the following:

(a) Military Formations or Ceremonies. You do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance while in military formation.
(b) Outdoors. When in military-style uniform, you stand at attention, face the flag, remain silent, and salute.
(c) Indoors. When in military-style uniform, stand at attention, face the flag, but do not salute. You may recite the pledge indoors.
(d) Civilian Dress. When in civilian clothes (indoors or outdoors), you should stand at attention, face the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while holding your right hand over your heart. (Men should remove headdress and hold with right
hand over their heart.)

So, if you're inside in a meeting you can say the pledge even if in uniform unless you're lined up on a drill floor in formation.  

One of our other Group CCs recently pointed out that CAPP 151 actually contradicts the US Flag Code.

TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

                           CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with
the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any
non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should
remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

(Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1494;
amended Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(a), Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060.)

I'd have to think that the USC trumps a CAP pamphlet, and we've instructed our members to remain silent.

According to the CAPM 39-1, CAP members wear a "AF-Style uniform" or a uniform "similar to the U.S. Air Force, so I do not see a contridiction or the USC trumping a CAP pamphlet.  From my understanding, CAP members do not come under the USC or the UCMJ codes.

[A.Member]

Wow!  Some interesting comments all around...to say the least.

While I agree with many of the Chief's general thoughts/impressions about CAP and the need for change, I remain for skeptical that this is an approach that would effectively address those issues. 

As was pointed out by another poster, this proposal is at odds with uniform changes (think Majcom patch) and aircraft/vehicle markings (removal of USAF AUX).  Thus, it further adds to the schizophrenia of the organization.

The lack of communication, particularly as it relates to our strategic direction, remains one of the most significant detriments to the organization.   And actually, it's not just the lack of communication, it's the lack of a consistant message.  This thread helps illustrate this point.

That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that currently have acheived advanced ranks in CAP without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

[Hawk200]

That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that have acheived advanced ranks without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

Indeed it is. But if we don't start because of the impact, then we're not making an effort to improve ourselves. "Can't make an omelet..." and all that. Personally, I would make an effort to meet any new requirements, and I think a number of current members would be more than willing to do the same.

If they do this, I hope they lay out a new plan soon. I'd like to get started.

[A.Member]

That said, one of the things that I still would like more help understanding is how this new proposal would impact existing and new members.  I understand mentoring and the role of NCO's in the military.  However, it seems to me that in order for such a proposal to be truly effective there must be a significant change in our grade structure.  "Senior Members" without an advanced grade would have to come in at an "enlisted" grade and progress accordingly.  Like the military, there would have to be a more formal requirement(s) to become an officer (ex., college education, practical/related "real-world" experience, etc. - an OTS type program?).   Of course, then that leaves us with what to do with all those that have acheived advanced ranks without such experience.

That's quite a mountain to climb...

Indeed it is. But if we don't start because of the impact, then we're not making an effort to improve ourselves. "Can't make an omelet..." and all that. Personally, I would make an effort to meet any new requirements, and I think a number of current members would be more than willing to do the same.

If they do this, I hope they lay out a new plan soon. I'd like to get started.

I don't disagree at all.  Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the goal.  I was just pointing out one of the items I see as needing to be addressed in order to for such a program to be effective/successful.

[Eclipse]

There's people running for President (on both sides) with pretty strong positions on CAP.

Who, running for President, even knows what CAP is?

[Eclipse]

-Treat me like the armed forces....BUT
-Let me act out and say what I want as though I'm NOT in the armed forces.

This come from the highest echelons.

You can't have it both ways there and then expect it will be different in the ranks.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

[Hawk200]

I don't disagree at all.  Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the goal.  I was just pointing out one of the items I see as needing to be addressed in order to for such a program to be effective/successful.

Good point. We've had a lot of new ideas come down, but no clear vision. I guess "wait and see" is as prudent now as it ever has been.