"US" and "CAP" on AF/TPU service Coat

Started by NAYBOR, May 05, 2007, 04:27:05 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DNall

Quote from: gallagheria on May 15, 2007, 06:03:51 PM
SDF's are prohibited from wearing any U.S. insignia under both NGR 10-4 and AR 670-1.
Obviously. They aren not in service of the US, that's a federal designator, that's why CAP does where it.

QuoteAs for prior service, it is not necessary. Some states have ratio quotas of prior-service to non, but that varies state by state. Commission requirements are similar to the Armed Forces--you have to have a college degree and then it varies state by state, but most require some form of OCS and then other training if you are not prior service. The primary difference I have seen between commissioning requirements between SDF's and the Armed Forces is medical and age restrictions. SDF's are by far more lenient with medical and age restrictions for the most part do not exist.
I was talking about progressing in the organizaiton. Every state has slightly different rules, but for the most part, to progress to field grade you have be a prior-service company grade officer, field grade to make full Col, etc. I believe the same is true in the SNCO grades, that you have to have been an PS jr NCO. The initial commissioning requirements from what I've seen are 60hrs of college, degree required to promote to Capt; and yes of course there's officer training involved, but not nearly the same as the National Guard.

But in the end yes, we should be in relatively the same uniform as the AF, only differing as much as is legally & practically required.

mikeylikey

Quote from: DNall on May 15, 2007, 06:55:06 PM
But in the end yes, we should be in relatively the same uniform as the AF, only differing as much as is legally & practically required.

That gets my complete agreement!  I think all it takes is the CAP specific nameplate on the jacket.  You have those American Cadet people running around wearing the exact same uniforms as AD.....just different nameplates/nametapes.  Makes you think, trust issues between AF and CAP?
What's up monkeys?

DNall

I'd call it respect issues. Right now CAP is a bunch of civilians with almost no standards for membership much less officer rank, and seen to be doing nothing in support of the AF.

I really think if they had to go all officer or all enlisted with the force, it would have been much better to go enlisted, regardless of what NCOs say then or now, it is a problem that we'll make anyone an officer. It points out how meaningless it is, which is not okay.

I'm not advocating CAP go enlisted only, but I do think members should come in enlisted & officer grades should be for the mgmt structure & involve higher quals to enter difficult training. I think that'd make a world of differnce.

I also think the initial entry training for all adult members should be much stronger - not basic mind you, but an orientation to a military organization rather than the girl scouts. We need to be wearing uniforms right, be comfortable with CnC, and in general not have our heads stuck up the backside of anything in particular. And there should be SOME standards for membership that should at least include a SQ board interview. Some others (particularly NIN) have post excpetional stuff on what they do & I think that needs to be adopted right away.

And third, I think we need to push hard into augmentation roles with the AF. It doesn't make a bigger impact, but it's visible to AF personnel & that's significant. SDFs & CGAux both provide instructive examples from which we can work with AF to create a solid system. Besides just being visible & helping out, there are some areas (8AF) where we can make a major impact on highly important issues to include national security.

And on the longer term bonus list, I'd like to work out a plan for congress to restructure the Aux status & downgrade the corp status. Kach mentioned before about some reasons the corp status is useful, and I agree but in a different way. I think the org should consist of a govt controlled Aux of which we are all members, and secondly of the CAP corp of which we are not members, but which consists of a charitable trust that owns stuff & raises money (public & private) to support Aux operations. Tat way you get teh best of both worlds, including much stronger liaibility controls (keep the risk & the things/$ you don't want at risk legally seperated from each other).

That'd be the bones of my vision for CAP transformation. You head even part way down that road & control your PR then you can make a strong case about respect issues like uniforms that will be earned & not just given.

gallagheria

To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 11:54:02 AM
To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.


I think the controlling law is the Militia Act of 1916.  That law provides that:

--  There can be no organized militia other than the National Guard.  The Rough Riders were organized by Teddy Roosevelt in 1898, but would have been illegal by the end of 1916.  Also illegal would have been the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Battery, which was organized by Alexander Hamilton.

--  The control of the National Guard is under the Governor unless called into Federal Service.

--  The Federal government will provide uniforms, weapons, equipment, pay for training to perform the Federal mission, and supplies needed to carry out that Federal training.

--  The states, if they mobilize their Guard units for a riot, insurrection, disaster, or for any other purpose, must pay for the salaries of soldiers and the supplies expended out of their funds.

--  The Natioanl Guard may wear the prescribed Federal uniform and use Federal weapons and equipment on a state mission.

--  The states may, but are not required to, maintain a state militia independent of the Federal National Guard, with such militia to serve as the state's armed forces in the event that the National Guard is called into Federal service.

Another former CAP officer

mikeylikey

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 17, 2007, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 11:54:02 AM
To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.


I think the controlling law is the Militia Act of 1916.  That law provides that:

--  There can be no organized militia other than the National Guard.  The Rough Riders were organized by Teddy Roosevelt in 1898, but would have been illegal by the end of 1916.  Also illegal would have been the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Battery, which was organized by Alexander Hamilton.

--  The control of the National Guard is under the Governor unless called into Federal Service.

--  The Federal government will provide uniforms, weapons, equipment, pay for training to perform the Federal mission, and supplies needed to carry out that Federal training.

--  The states, if they mobilize their Guard units for a riot, insurrection, disaster, or for any other purpose, must pay for the salaries of soldiers and the supplies expended out of their funds.

--  The Natioanl Guard may wear the prescribed Federal uniform and use Federal weapons and equipment on a state mission.

--  The states may, but are not required to, maintain a state militia independent of the Federal National Guard, with such militia to serve as the state's armed forces in the event that the National Guard is called into Federal service.



Never read that, thanks!  Question.....wasnt that artillery battery actaully organized by Henry Knox.......or am I mistaken.  Perhpas he came latter. 
What's up monkeys?

gallagheria

#46
That is my whole point, with two exceptions. There are later laws that affect the National Guard and the term "militia." The National Guard Mobilization Act (a part of the National Defense Act of 1933) created both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States. This is where the dual enlistments/commissions come into play. Any soldier who joins the National Guard (Title 32) is by law required to join the National Guard of the United States (Title 10).

Also, the State Defense Forces were created under 32 USC 109. These were allowed to be a part of the state militias and be free from activation into the Armed Forces, but as a result they would be ineligible for federal funds. This is so a state's entire National Guard would not be called up and the state would be left without a military.

The Supreme Court ruled in Perpich v. Department of Defense in 1990 that the SDF's actually are subject to federal activation under the Militia Laws, which distinguish the "Armed Forces" from the "militia."

As far as the Federal militia, you are correct as far as what comprises it. Federal law outlines two forms of militia: organized and unorganized. The National Guard comprises the organized militia and citizens or a specific age comprise the unorganized militia. But this is the federal militia, not the state militias as addressed in the Constitution and the Militia Laws and the Perpich case.   

mikeylikey

^^  Not to get too far off topic, but......there are some changes going on in the National Guard that would effectivley make some states all Combat Support.  So instead of an infantry some states are left with finance/medical/signal etc.  It is very bad for those states that will be affected. 
What's up monkeys?

gallagheria

Well, it is a wake up call to the states. 90% of the NG budget is from Uncle Sam. Yes, there are some current laws and regs that protect some states' interests concerning their NG units, but for the most part, the states gave up their rights when they took the checks.

If the Army is paying for a state's NG unit, then teh Army should be able to do whatever it wants with its toy. If a state wants to foot the bill, then the state should be able to do what it wants. It is pretty simple.

Congress forced the states to merge their National Guard units with the National Guard of the United States (a Title 10 reserve component of the Army) in 1933. As a trade-off, the Federal Government began training and paying for the NG soldiers, for the most part. At the same time, State Defense Forces were created so that states could continue to maintain control of their militias, but they would have to pay 100% of the training and pay. Today, about 50% of the states have SDF units, but most are tiny and not very equipped or trained. Most are retirees or prior-service with some exceptions.

When states decide to fund the Guard unit, they can decide what to do with their Guard units; otherwise I would tell them to shut up.

DNall

NGUS right... Though on title 32 status when not called to duty, the guard is effectively a federal military force on loan to the state, who pays a portion of the expense. I really don't know how much the state pays, but I'm under the impression it's more than 10%. I don't know about gear, but I know the guard limits what kind of training they'll send you to cause they have to pay for some of it &  put you on active duty orders, which I guess they pay part of.

gallagheria

I would be careful with the phrase: "Though on title 32 status when not called to duty, the guard is effectively a federal military force on loan to the state." On Title 32 status, National Guard soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ, they are under the command of the governor/TAG, they can exercise no command over Title 10 soldiers (federal soldiers), and they are not protected under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. The only federal involvement in Title 32 activation is that the federal government is funding the mission through the state (so technically the state is still paying the soldier), and the soldier has job protection with his civilian employer under federal laws. Title 32 soldiers are not even subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, and thus can be used as police forces. Huge difference between Title 32 and Title 10.

DNall

We're getting way techincal here.... I'm not talking about State active duty, just practical status. On the whole it's a very technical, complicated, & in some cases gray area, even in dispute btwn fed/state govts at times. The point is NG troops have a status as federal troops & state troops, the federal status takes precedent (plus practicality), so they dress as federal troops.

CAP is likewise a federal force that can at times do work for states, but fed takes precedent & "US" is appropriate.

SDFs on the other hand are exclusively state forces, and even in the most extreme of circumstances the state would take precedent, or they'd be drafted into the NG (or something like PHS) before going over to federal authority.

I don't see where any of this matter though beyond explaining that the "military" status of an SDF is about as meaningful as the "corporate" status of CAP. We both need to get our acts together in a big way. There are important lessons we can learn from them & things they do that we can copy for our federal committment. On the other end, we have a serious mission & resources with which to conduct it. They're taken a bit more seriously on teh individual level, but we have a much more legit mission profile & capability that's got some, albeit not nearly enough, respect.

gallagheria

I agree for the most part.

My whole point is that the Air Force regulates the uniform of CAP by far too much. So many agencies use the various military uniforms and there is very little change. I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change.

In the end, it really should be the "U.S. Air Force" nametape that is replaced with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Otherwise, as I noted, CAP should look at a different uniform altogether, similar to how we did the Corporate.   

mikeylikey

Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:26:45 PM
I agree for the most part.
I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change. 

DA Civilians wear the Army uniform becuase they are technicaly considered part of the military.  Some DA jobs require the employee to be available for overseas duty in war zones whenever.  Hell......before going overseas to Iraq/AFGHAN DA Civ's are required to complete marksmanship and survival training.  In our world now, the enemy does not distinquish between civilians and military. 
What's up monkeys?

Dragoon

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 17, 2007, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: gallagheria on May 17, 2007, 07:26:45 PM
I agree for the most part.
I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change. 

DA Civilians wear the Army uniform becuase they are technicaly considered part of the military.  Some DA jobs require the employee to be available for overseas duty in war zones whenever.  Hell......before going overseas to Iraq/AFGHAN DA Civ's are required to complete marksmanship and survival training.  In our world now, the enemy does not distinquish between civilians and military. 

I think the big difference is that when DA Civilians wear BDUs/ACUs, they aren't wearing any grade, and they have the big patch that identifies them as DA Civilians.  So there really isn't a requirement to regulate beyond that.  Nametape, Army Tape and the Civilian patch are pretty much it.  And since it's incredibly clear that they are DA Civilians, there's no reason to worry about stuff like beards and weight.

Now if CAP decided to go that route (no grade and a big CAP identifier, and little else), I'm sure USAF would let us all wear their suits all the time.   But since that's not how we do things....

gallagheria

The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

ddelaney103

Quote from: gallagheria on May 18, 2007, 04:12:24 PM
The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

That's because they're an official US Uniformed Service, as opposed to an Armed Service.  Federal recognition, don't ya know.

We can't say "you're not the boss of me for uniforms" at the same time we're saying "give us lots of money."  OK, well you can, but it would be stupid.

I suspect they'd be happier about everyone wearing the AF uniform if we went to Auxilarist insignia instead of commissioned grade insignia.  I'd be happy to pop mine off.

gallagheria

Once again, the argument holds no ground. My whole point is that we receive federal money and are regulated by the federal government. The Air Force refuses to allow us to wear a uniform without severe restrictions while at the same time other agencies of the federal government wear military uniforms with no restrictions, other than a simple designation on it reading what they are--hence "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

What is the logic of a federal agency, two in this case, wearing uniforms who by law have little to do with the military, while at the same time restricting the CAP who actually are underneath the umbrella of the military as an auxiliary and even in part as a federally chartered corporation?

Sgt. Savage

You may be answering your own question. "What is the logic of a federal agency, two in this case, wearing uniforms who by law have little to do with the military, while at the same time restricting the CAP who actually are underneath the umbrella of the military as an auxiliary and even in part as a federally chartered corporation?"

We are restricted because of our affiliation. You can bet that if the Air Force could restrict the wear of the uniform by other organizations, they would.

In short, they do it because they can. Much like they can make me wear dress blue stripes, which look like dog A$$, on my BDU's. It's almost like they want to see how messed up they can make us look.

(walking away mumbling under my breath)

Dragoon

Quote from: gallagheria on May 18, 2007, 04:12:24 PM
The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

Ahh, but DA civilians supporting the Army DON'T wear military rank.  In Iraq I could tell a DA civilian from a soldier a mile away - no rank on the collar, hat, or front of the shirt/flack vest, no unit patch, and the DA Civilian identifier.  No confusion.  If the civilian had captain's bars and a unit patch it would have been very confusing.

Reference PHS and NOAA, I'm not sure they are a valid comparison to CAP.  They are commissioned.  We aren't.  The aren't helping out a parent service like we are. - they ARE the parent service. 

Effectively, CAP are civilians supporting USAF.  Which makes us a lot closer, identitywise, to DA Civilians than to members of the PHS or NOAA commissioned corps.    It doesn't surprise me that they want to make it abundantly clear from a distance that our officers aren't the same as their officers.

Now if we just had a big 'ol USAF Auxiliary tag and nothing else on the uniforms, they'd probably let us put big 'ol bearded guys into them.  But just the utilities - because there'd be no real reason to give us service uniforms when paid USAF civilians just wear suits. 

Sgt Savage said it best - their money, their rules.  Or as a friend of mine likes to put it "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's business".




As an aside, it was explained to me by both PHS and NOAA folks,  the major practical reason for keeping the PHS and NOAA commissioned folks is that they can be ordered to deploy wherever they are needed.  The civilians in those organizations can't be moved unless they want do, just like other government civilians.