A Commission?

[Dragoon]

Well, maybe you do fine at Great Lakes, but some of us have to jump through a lot of hoops to get on base. So for starters ... no hassle base access.

Second (ties in with one) it would eliminate any questions as to whether or not we have the right to use the clothing and sales store. Or the Flight Club  or anything else , without having to look up regs while the folks in the line behind you get upset at the delay. (not saying we need full privileges at the BX, Walmart is cheaper anyway)

Third how about the same job protection Iowa has - for every state- (having a commission would do this as we'd be under the guard and reserve act)

POSSIBLY a Uniform allowance.

Legitimacy in the eyes of the other USAF components (and certain sherriffs deputies when we are out on that 3am ELT hunt. Also more of a team atmosphere. You mention you get plenty of salutes at the NTC but Ive never had one in either my CAP or USCG Aux uniform. - not saying its important, just stating fact-

Personal Recognition and possibly the ability to become eligible for USAF ribbons/medals/awards.

I can think of some more but I dont have the time.
[/quote]

I don't think these require a commission - any USAF Airman gets this stuff.


But past that, here's the deal - why should USAF support such a proposal?  In other words, what is broken about CAP (not in YOUR eyes, but in the eyes of USAF) that would be fixed by handing out commissions?

I agree it would be cool.  But also it ain't gonna happen.



Now, I could see some sort of "official status" for CP folks IF the focus of our program changed from "developing young americans" to "recruiting airmen for USAF."  One could then make an economic case that we could deliver more high quality recruits if we had more official status and support.  But that ain't our mission.  So it also isn't gonna happen.

[SAR-EMT1]

Your right every airman does get those things. And thats kinda the point.

So aside from a commission (or as the they in Britain, " The Queens Parchment") what can we do to get these things?

[Ricochet13]

I just occurred to me . . . as a commissioned officer, would I have to resign my current commission to accept a U.S. Civil Air Patrol commission?

[ddelaney103]

Your right every airman does get those things. And thats kinda the point.

So aside from a commission (or as the they in Britain, " The Queens Parchment") what can we do to get these things?

Well, you could enlist...

Seriously, to get additional bennies from Big Blue, you have to show them how giving us X will give them something they want - and they want nothing from us.

I direct you to the Statement of Work, or SoW.  For government contractors (of which we are one) it is the document that determines what you can and can't do.

I don't have a link at hand, but the SoW doesn't require us to do anything for the AF.  We must have a safety program and we can do stuff for the AF if it wants, but there is no mandatory work required of us.

The AF is fighting a war, mostly with the Army and Navy for funding, but occasionally overseas as well.  If you want them to take money from their warfighting programs and drop it on us, you have to make it worth their while.

[RiverAux]

CAP shall conduct air/ground search and rescue (SAR) and disaster relief (DR) in response to man-made events or natural disasters.

Most of the SoW uses langauge such as "the AF may request", but language such as the obove is used in regards to CD and other missions.  Don't see how it is relevant to the argument at hand though.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm personally not sure where the discussion is going.

A "Commission" is a letter from the President, advising anybody who might have reason to know that:

1.  The President has "Special trust and confidence" in a certain person.

2.  That person is appointed to a certain officer rank  in a stated military component.

3.  That person is to obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over him.

4.  That person is to do a good, diligent, job, no matter what duty is assigned.

5.  Officers and others of lesser rank are to render him obedience.

A "Warrant" says the same thing, but is a letter from the service secretary.

Neither the President, nor the Secretary of the Air Force, appoints CAP officers.  Are you asking for:

1.  The National Commander, who DOES appoint CAP officers, to give you a commission/appointment letter?

2.  The US Civil Air Patrol to become a stand-alone force like USPHS and USCG, and then have the President commission USCAP officers?

3.  Have the President commission CAP officers into the Air Force?

4.  Have the Secretary of the Air Force appoint CAP officers on warrants?

Pick one, and we can discuss the pros and cons.  Right now, I don't know what you want.

[SAR-EMT1]

Three or Four would be best ... And - knowing some might abuse it- in such a way that we couldnt damage the CAP - USAF relationship.

In other words a commission, but not one that would only allow for orders to be given within CAP. AE- we could not order USAF personnel or the like.
- Such as how Canada or Great Britain commission the Adults in their cadet programs.

One might work, but doubtful. Two is scary and shouldnt happen.

[mikeylikey]

Instead of a Commission, the AIR FORCE should just give us MISSIONS!  I think we had less missions this past quarter than in the previous 5 years.  Give me a day to break the stats out.

[Short Field]

Instead of a Commission, the AIR FORCE should just give us MISSIONS! 

MISSIONS!!   :angel:     Please Sir, may I have another!!!!

[Dragoon]

CAP shall conduct air/ground search and rescue (SAR) and disaster relief (DR) in response to man-made events or natural disasters.

Most of the SoW uses langauge such as "the AF may request", but language such as the obove is used in regards to CD and other missions.  Don't see how it is relevant to the argument at hand though.

Here's how it's relevant

Let's say CAP wants stuff from USAF.  Like mebbe PX priviledges, commissions, whatever.

So...USAF asks CAP "why do we want to spend effort (and maybe money) to give you that?"

What's CAP's answer?

The only good answer would be "If you give us this stuff, we can do a better job at doing what you want us to do."

USAF would then say one of two things:

1.  "Prove it.  Explain how giving you what you want will get us more of what we want.  Build the business case"

and

2.  "Actually, you're doing a good enough job doing what we want you do to right now>  We're basically happy.  Why should we change anything?"



Without good responses to these two things, any request for bennies is DOA.

Now, if USAF was unhappy with us; if we were failing in meeing the standards in the statement of work, then they'd probably be more open to helping us do better.


But, basically, in their eyes CAP ain't broke - why fix it?


Don't get me wrong - as a 25+ yr member I'd love to see a more official, professional, dare I say more military CAP.  But I doubt it's going to happen without someone at the top (above CAP NHQ) demanding more performance out of CAP.  That, and only that, would lead to real change inside the organization.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I still don't know what you want.

IF you have a "Commission," or a warrant, that ONLY allows you to give orders to CAP folk, why not have the Natl Cdr issue the commission?  That's what we have now, so just write it down on high-quality paper suitable for framing.

And... Eclipse, we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

[gallagheria]

I think what he wants is for CAP officers to have command authority. The problem with that is that even if CAP officers had a federal commission, their command would be restricted to position, not rank. Even in the Army, command is decided by position, not rank. It just so happens that higher ranking officers usually have higher command, but not always.

A lieutenant colonel cannot tell a major what to do if the major is not under his command. So even if CAP officers were commissioned, their positions would restrict them to command only those under them. We would then need to align our appointment standards with the rest of the uniformed services, which is basically a four-year degree (two-year in some reserve cases), and completing of some sort of schooling (ROTC, Academy, federal or state OCS, etc.). Direct appointment could be derived with some sort of schooling program sponsored by the Air Force. The whole dynamics of the CAP would need to be changed to allow only those who meet the qualifications to become officers, rather than this automatic promotion to 2LT when you hit a certain age. We would need NCO's and most likely warrant officers for the pilots and specialists we have who have no college education.

Then we would need to ensure that our officers meet certain standards for health, age, and physical fitness. That is the biggest problem I see in the state defense forces right now. Although they are commissioned at the state level (just like National Guard officers who receive dual commissions--state and federal) and are recognized under federal law, they are prime examples of what happens when you have no standardization.

Then there is a problem with having active duty military personnel or even reservists in the CAP. Federal law and regulation both prohibit active duty and reservists from being in the SDF and Armed Forces at the same time. Just like a person cannot be enlisted in the Navy Reserves and commissioned in the Regular Army at the same time, we could not allow a person to be commissioned in the CAP and Army at the same time or (even enlisted). We might be able to come up with a scheme that allows them to be advisers or organization members, but certainly not a part of the Uniformed Services as a commissioned officer while in another branch thereof.

So we need to be careful how we frame this or what we are asking for.

[MIKE]

Like to see something similar to the Air Training Corps RAFVR(T) system, which appears to also be similar to that of Canada, Australia etc... The commission is real enough with associated privilages... and the members are in enough to warrant same... but still appropriately different enough for the purposes of interfacing with the regulars

...That and they make you retire from uniformed service when you reach retirement age. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Mike:

What you are asking for would not be all that difficult.

I'm not sure if it would require activation of the Legislative Liasion Squadron or not.

What would have to happen is that CAP would have to be considered a COMPONENT of the Air Force, rather than an auxiliary.  Or, for the purists out there, maybe an "Auxiliary Component."

The Air Force would then be composed of 4 components:

1.  The Regular Air Force.

2.  The Air Force Reserve.

3.  The Air National Guard.

4.  The Air Force Auxiliary.

"The President of the United States, reposing special trust and confidence in the valor, patriotism, fidelity, and abilities of

ANDREW ANTHONY APE[mess]

I do appoint him

SECOND LIEUTENANT, AUXILIARY

In the

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

etc., etc., etc."

(The major, with a grand, sweeping gesture, jots this idea onto page 43 of his "To-Do list for when I am National Commander.")

[ddelaney103]

I think what he wants is for CAP officers to have command authority. The problem with that is that even if CAP officers had a federal commission, their command would be restricted to position, not rank. Even in the Army, command is decided by position, not rank. It just so happens that higher ranking officers usually have higher command, but not always.

A lieutenant colonel cannot tell a major what to do if the major is not under his command. So even if CAP officers were commissioned, their positions would restrict them to command only those under them. We would then need to align our appointment standards with the rest of the uniformed services, which is basically a four-year degree (two-year in some reserve cases), and completing of some sort of schooling (ROTC, Academy, federal or state OCS, etc.). Direct appointment could be derived with some sort of schooling program sponsored by the Air Force. The whole dynamics of the CAP would need to be changed to allow only those who meet the qualifications to become officers, rather than this automatic promotion to 2LT when you hit a certain age. We would need NCO's and most likely warrant officers for the pilots and specialists we have who have no college education.

Your example is not entirely correct.

The description you give is correct for most day-to-day military matters.  However, all military members have an intrinsic authority and responsibility that goes with their grade.

When I am an E-8 on AD orders and see a situation involving E-7's and below (of any service) that requires immediate correction, I am required to take charge and they are required to "respect my authority."  If I do not act, I can be held accountable for their actions and my inaction.

Ironically, what you describe is absolutely correct when applied to CAP, with the exception of Cadets.  I never have authority based on my CAP grade - on based on the position I hold.

[Short Field]

we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

[JohnKachenmeister]

we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

Obviously, Shortfield, you have never worked with me.

Assuming that I order 1st Lt Scanner to a ground mission, and he refuses to go.

I will immediately have him sign off the mission and go home.  After the mission I will write a letter to his commander, with a copy to his Group and Wing commanders describing his insubordination and recommending that the officer be removed from the CAP on a 2B.

If you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

[ddelaney103]

we DO give orders to folk to do what they don't want to do.  Everytime I put a scanner who wants to fly on the ground mission because I've got enough flight crews, I order him to do something he'd rather not do.

Sorry, but you REFUSE to let him fly and ASK him to be on the ground mission.  He can't fight your decision to refuse to do something, but he can always REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER for the ground mission - and there is very little you can do to FORCE him onto the ground mission.  There are all manner of ways you can try to convice him to go on the gournd mission,  but his non-particiaption on the ground mission is not failure to obey a Lawful Order.

Obviously, Shortfield, you have never worked with me.

Assuming that I order 1st Lt Scanner to a ground mission, and he refuses to go.

I will immediately have him sign off the mission and go home.  After the mission I will write a letter to his commander, with a copy to his Group and Wing commanders describing his insubordination and recommending that the officer be removed from the CAP on a 2B.

If you suit up to play, you play by the rules.  And the rules say that you don't get to determine your own batting order.

OK, now that's just plain bat crazy.

This is not the 'nam or Iraq where you can just hand out "in lieu of" taskings and send them outside the wire, this is CAP.

If Lt Scanner shows up, you're well within your rights to say, "look, I don't need another scanner, but will you take a ground team tasking instead?"  The Lt can decide he's not equipped, not trained or just not up for that tasking and decline.

If he does, you're within your rights to say, "well, I won't have work for you today - you can either head home or hang out until your ride is ready to leave, but you need to stay out of the way."

But insubordination?  Unless his refusal came out, "Bite me, IC-boy: homey don't play with ground pukes!" you have no grounds for your charges.  If a letter like that came across my desk when I was Sdqn or Group cc, I'd forward it to Wing with a "someone needs to adjust this guy's meds" notation.

[ZigZag911]

I have to go with Kach on this one.
Once upon a time CAP had "Mission Coordinators"; whether this was an Air Force preference or some other reason, I never did find out.

However, most 'MCs" I knew were CAP lt colonels, often Group CCs or Wing DO types, and they expected personnel to do what they were told.

Since we went to ICS we have "Incident Commanders".

This should make it clear, even to the densest among us, that this officer is in charge.

For a brief period our Core Values were virtually identical to USAF -- we used 'Service Before Self' before we changed over to 'Volunteer Service' -- and I really think that said it all: we volunteer for the mission, or we volunteer for nothing.

No reasonable IC is going to ask any member to undertake a task for which that member is unqualified, uncertified, untrained, poorly equipped or not properly prepared. There is simply too much hazard, risk, and liability involved.

Beyond that limitation, however, I for one, as an IC myself, would rather the prima donnas who are only going to do what they choose to do, rather than support the team effort, stay home.

Not just from the mission....I'd personally prefer they stayed home permanently.

And as a former Group CC myself, whenever one of my people gave static to an IC, activity commander, course director or project officer, if the unit commander failed to take corrective action (all I was really looking for was counseling, at least in the initial instance -- but some squadron commanders are afraid they'll lose member if they say anything!), that individual was called to Group HQ for a little chat.

[wingnut]

With all being said
I have flown on some missions that had a LT running it who has no flight time has directed pilots to fly in IMC for an ELT at an Airport, I have witnessed ICs verbally abuse senior members including calling them names in front of dozens of mission pilots.Or Refuse to correct a dangerous situation. NO the IC system has dangerous flaws and I believe we need to go back to a structured command system with a CAP senior officer in charge over the IC during a mission. Recent Air Force directives gives the state Air force CAP director the authority to shut a IC down and shut a mission down at any time because of numerous past incidents. Now we have some exceptional ICs, I would fly into an Alien space invasion, but they are usually senior experienced CAP pilots. I don't think you can be an IC without lots of REAL mission time.